ourNHShttps://www.opendemocracy.net/taxonomy/term/12254/all
cached version 17/01/2019 11:08:06enThe NHS Long Term Plan, prevention, and a century of promiseshttps://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/george-gosling/nhs-long-term-plan-health-centres-and-dog-that-didn-t-bark
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>Bringing together prevention and cure, health and social
care, is hardly a new – or strange – idea. So why hasn’t it happened?</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/Nye-Bevan-3.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/Nye-Bevan-3.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="400" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Image: Portrait of Nye Bevan by Marcus Stone, 1945. Credit: People's History of the NHS.</span></span></span></p><p>The fanfare that surrounded the publication of the <a href="https://www.longtermplan.nhs.uk/">NHS Long-Term
Plan</a> made sure to highlight its promise that a shift away from
hospital treatment will not only <a href="https://www.longtermplan.nhs.uk/online-version/overview-and-summary/">save
the NHS “over £1 billion a year in new expenditure averted”</a> but also
<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46777387">save
half-a-million lives</a>. Which rather raises the question: if the locus
of care is to be relocated away from the expensive hospital, then to where? There
is one popular alternative that has had a difficult history, not least with the
Conservative Party, over the past century.</p>
<p>In the aftermath of the First World War, Lloyd George was
turning the attention of his government to post-war reconstruction and social
reform. This included the creation in 1919 of a new government department – the
Ministry of Health – under the direction of Christopher Addison, a GP turned
Liberal MP and one of the Prime Minister’s closest allies. One of his first
acts as Health Minister was to establish a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Dawson, formerly the King’s
physician,&nbsp;to investigate the “schemes requisite for the systematised
provision of such forms of medical and allied services as should… be available
for the inhabitants of a given area”. </p>
<p>The committee’s
interim report the following year outlined <a href="https://peopleshistorynhs.org/museumobjects/dawson-report-area-diagram/">detailed
plans for establishing a network of health centres in every area across the
country</a>.
However, a final report was never written, and the health centres were never
built. As Lloyd George’s influence over his own coalition government waned, and
the Tories were demanding ‘retrenchment’ – what today we would call ‘austerity’
– a whole raft of social reforms fell to the wayside. </p>
<p>Two decades later in 1942, when Britain found itself at war
again, Lord Dawson wrote in
the&nbsp;<em>British Medical Journal,</em>&nbsp;saying
that his long-neglected plans “might well form the basis of reconstruction
to-day”. Indeed, by the end of the war, it was widely assumed that the widely
debated new National Health Service would include a host of new health centres.
Four years before the NHS was established in 1948, before Labour had won the
1945 election and Aneurin Bevan appointed Health Minister, medical social workers
were worrying that the inevitable new health centres would be set up too
slowly. Hoping to capitalise on the wartime expansion of social services, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09612025.2017.1328760">social
workers warned in 1944</a> that: “Unless health centres are
rapidly developed general practitioners will not be able to take full advantage
of the preventive and social services existing for the patient’s welfare”. </p>
<p>Despite expectations, health centres never really became a
feature of the NHS. New health centres were not a priority for a nation in need
of much post-war rebuilding. Meanwhile, the leadership of the medical
profession was suspicious enough of the new state service, without relocating
GPs <em>en masse</em> into NHS health centres.
Over the first 15 years of the NHS, only 17 health centres were opened – hardly
the national network the Tories had scuppered back in the 1920s.</p>
<h2>From 70s optimism to Darzi polyclinics – and
Cameron</h2>
<p>The idea of
health centres, as a place to bring together the preventive and curative
services of the NHS, had caught on by the 1970s, when their building peaked at
100 a year. These health centres were often built by local authorities, who
employed health visitors and nurses, renting out space to GPs and dentists.
They proved popular but too expensive for that rate of building to continue
once the financial troubles of the late 1970s set in.</p>
<p>Efforts since
then to radically develop the siting of primary care, to allow for a shift away
from expensive hospital provision, have not been easy. Under Gordon Brown,
Labour’s answer was polyclinics. They offered the possibility of integrating
various health and social care services for those with long-term conditions,
but deeply divided opinion. While Professor Darzi saw them as central to his
2008 ‘Healthcare for London’ plan, questions over funding were combined with
suspicions on the left over the role of the private sector and those on the
right about central government imposing a standardised system on local
communities. Polyclinics didn’t survive the arrival of David Cameron’s
coalition government in 2010 and they aren’t what the new plan is talking
about.</p>
<p>As the <em><a href="https://www.ft.com/content/fdd3bcba-127d-11e9-a581-4ff78404524e">Financial
Times</a></em><em> </em>noted, “the NHS cannot close hospitals until new primary care
facilities are established”, but there’s no proper discussion of such actual centres
in the plan. Instead, there’s talk of digital GP consultations and the promise
of £4.5billion to fund the expansion of multidisciplinary community teams to
work with local GPs. The idea is that over a number of years, in each area, GPs
will enter into a single ‘network contract’ with district nurses,
pharmacists, physiotherapists, dementia workers and others, including from
social care and the voluntary sector (no mention of the private sector).
There’s no plan to physically bring them together, but instead for them to be
supported by undefined ‘community hubs’. </p>
<p>Whether there will be staff needed for these teams, whether
the agreed funding will prove enough or whether these new ethereal health
centres can avoid the setbacks and controversies of their concrete predecessors
over the past century remains to be seen.</p>
<p>Of course, this
isn’t just about which medical services are provided where (or
even by whom). It's also part of the much wider canvas of social provision,
which stretches beyond the obvious health and social care services. After all, the NHS doesn't exist in a vacuum.</p>
<h2>Where’s the joined up thinking on prevention?</h2>
<p>“Prevention is
better than cure” was the motto of the <a href="http://www.vahs.org.uk/2013/03/feature-3/">National Health
Society</a>, founded in 1871 by the world’s first woman MD, Elizabeth
Blackwell, the leader of the Victorian public health movement, Edwin Chadwick,
and others. One of their key campaigns was for more urban green spaces, in
which they were soon joined by Lord Meath’s Metropolitan Parks and Gardens
Association and Miranda and Octavia Hill’s Kyrle Society. These city parks and
school playgrounds were intended not only to provide the poor a chance for some
fresh air away from the slums, but also as a space for the masses to engage in outdoor
sports. 140 years ago, their campaigns were based on the understanding that
preventing illness means supporting healthy lives in a whole variety of ways.
It was this same understanding that led Addison to introduce the first council
housing from the new Ministry of Health, and gave Bevan the dual task of
beginning the rebuilding Britain’s blitzed cities at the same time as setting
up the NHS.</p>
<p>In spring of this
year, we’re promised guidelines on <em>Putting
Health into Place</em>, to build on the NHS’s work with the <a href="https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/innovation/healthy-new-towns/">Healthy
New Towns</a> programme to work towards a healthy built environment. But
this features in an appendix on how the plan will allow the NHS to help others.
Something largely missing here is an acknowledgement that the success of the
envisaged shift away from hospital provision rests in no small part on factors
beyond the NHS itself. </p>
<p>The new plan talks
of ‘cutting delays in patients being able to go home’, somewhat downplaying the
fact this doesn’t just mean patients being ready to leave hospital but also
having somewhere to go. It refers repeatedly to integrating health and social
care services, particularly for older people, but <a href="https://www.carehomeprofessional.com/leaders-call-social-care-green-paper-government-publishes-nhs-10-year-plan/">the
lack of a parallel plan for residential social care</a> is striking.</p>
<p><span>If the government
had truly realised that these ambitious plans for the NHS are inextricable from
the wider raft of social and welfare services, wouldn’t Amber Rudd be scrapping
or undertaking a far more fundamental rethink of the much-maligned universal
credit system? Wouldn’t there be a plan to revitalise the local authority
public health and social services that have taken such a battering from a
decade of austerity?&nbsp;</span></p>
<p>The fact this plan
cuts such a lonely figure suggests the government hasn’t begun to grasp the scale
of the challenge ahead for our NHS.</p><div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSukourNHSGeorge GoslingFri, 11 Jan 2019 17:12:30 +0000George Gosling121265 at https://www.opendemocracy.netDoctors leaders call on government to halt NHS migrant chargeshttps://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/joanna-dobbin/doctors-condemn-nhs-migrant-charging-that-hits-women-hardest
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>The Royal College of Physicians have today joined with other Royal Colleges to call on the government to suspend upfront charging of overseas visitors within the NHS, calling them a "concerning barrier to care".</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/maternity block.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/maternity block.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="296" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Image: NHS maternity unit. Credit: Andrew Matthews/PA Images, all rights reserved.</span></span></span></p><p>The Royal College of Physicians have today joined with other Royal Colleges to call on the government to suspend NHS upfront charging of overseas visitors. The medical leaders say in a statement issued today that the government policy, introduced in 2015 and 2017 regulations, is a "concerning barrier to care" that is "likely to lead to poorer patient outcomes and contribute to already low morale in our profession." The Colleges raise concerns about the impact on public and individual health, and point particularly to the "detrimental impact" on expectant and new mothers and "cases of children having been denied treatment for various life-threatening conditions".</p>
<p>The evidence from fellow health professionals has been mounting since
the introduction of the regulations and the message is clear:
Upfront charging damages the health of migrants and British citizens alike.
From children having their cancer treatment delayed and women suffering
preventable birth complications, to the Windrush scandal which saw British
citizens of commonwealth descent denied an array of health services, the human
cost of these policies is unacceptable. </p>
<p>The call from the Royal College of Physicians, supported by the
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Obstetrics
and Gynaecology and the Faculty of Public Health to halt the charges pending a full review, is the latest example of the
professional dismay at the unwillingness of the government to engage in
evidence-based policy. Working as a junior doctor in London, I experience first-hand
the harm caused to patients who have their health care denied and delayed. As I
sit comforting the women denied psychological support on the verge of breakdown
after years of domestic abuse, I am constantly amazed at the pointless
brutality of a system which denies the vulnerable care: as a clinician, and a
human, I feel her suffering.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/commissions/migration-health" target="_blank">UCL-Lancet
commission</a> on migration and health that was released this month highlights the
economic fallout of pursuing exclusionary health policies for migrants. It
evidences the net economic benefit of migration for host countries, and debunks
common myths of migrants being a ‘drain’ on local services. Indeed, on average
migrants experience superior life expectancy than the national average of their
host countries. The commission also links poor maternal health outcomes among
migrants to barriers created to prevent them from accessing services - a
statistic that Britain regrettably contributes to. </p>
<p>Patients in a South London hospital have been asked for a deposit before
giving birth - as if not having the down payment will stop them going into
labour. It does however, as one woman tells me, stop her from attending her
antenatal appointments.</p>
<p>Analysis of charging of non-EEA patients have demonstrated the unequal
impact on women of reproductive age, with numerous reports documenting
individual <a href="https://www.maternityaction.org.uk/policy/publications/what-price-safe-motherhood-charging-for-nhs-maternity-care-in-england-and-its-impact-on-migrant-women/" target="_blank">pregnant women’s
struggles</a>. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) last week released<a href="https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/lived-experiences-access-healthcare-people-seeking-and-refused-asylum" target="_blank"> research</a> which <em>again </em>demonstrated women
who have been through the asylum system are not accessing antenatal care due to
fears of charging. </p>
<p>These retrograde policies, of trying to scare patients into not
attending hospital appointments under the guise of cost saving, are Theresa
May’s hostile environment in action. Women have to choose between the cost of
giving birth and the cost of an abortion, financially penalised for an activity
which inextricably involves members of both sex. These patterns of out of
pocket health care costs impacting women are echoed around the globe, with the
World Bank reporting that only 17% of the poorest households have adequate
maternal health care compared to 74% of the wealthiest.</p>
<p>Why has upfront charging been implemented despite there being no clear
economic benefit, and an array of documented patient harm? These policies are
politically motivated; an attempt to win votes based on anti-immigration
rhetoric, backed by a right wing press that stokes racial tensions.</p>
<p>It is not only migrant women’s health that is suffering under the
current UK government. Recent analysis of <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(18)30214-7/fulltext#sec1" target="_blank">life expectancy
data in England</a> has shown the alarming increase in health inequalities in the UK.
Whilst life expectancy continues to grow for the wealthiest in society, women
in the two most deprived deciles have seen a decrease in life expectancy since
2011 (a year after the conservative coalition government came to power). These
gender based inequalities are unsurprising, given how<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/09/women-bearing-86-of-austerity-burden-labour-research-reveals" target="_blank"> austerity has
disproportionately impacted the lives of women</a>. As the UN special report on extreme
poverty demonstrated, spending cuts have hit women hard, <a href="https://rightsinfo.org/the-hostile-environment-has-been-weaponised-by-domestic-abusers/" target="_blank">exacerbating
domestic violence</a>, whilst the policy of universal credit places women at risk of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/22/universal-credit-domestic-abuse-violence-yvette-cooper" target="_blank">economic abuse</a>. With pro-nationalist groups who
proudly declare themselves “anti-feminist” (Bolsonaro’s Social Liberty Party in
Brazil, Vox in Spain) gaining power around the world, we must remain as
vigilant as ever in the fight against gender inequities. </p>
<p>The dangerous wave of nationalism that is sweeping across Europe will
only serve to drive inequalities deeper. Italy <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/07/vulnerable-migrants-made-homeless-after-italy-passes-salvini-decree" target="_blank">last week revoked</a> the work permits of many migrants,
overnight forcing them into an undocumented status. The MSF ship <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/12/refugee-ship-aquarius-stop-rescue-mission-mediterranean-181207062845983.html" target="_blank">Aquarius has had
to stop sailing</a>, after failing to find a flag to sail under, abandoning thousands to
drown in the Mediterranean. This just three years after the body of 3-year old
Alan Kurdi, a Syrian child fleeing conflict, washed up on a beach in Greece
provoking international outrage. It appears to be a sad case of out of sight,
out of mind.</p>
<p>The release of these statements should act as a call to action for the
medical community and a wake-up call to the government, that their harmful
practices will not be tolerated in the NHS. I am proud to be part of a medical
community that will stand up in the face of adversity for what we know to be
right.</p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/ed-jones/upfront-nhs-charges-one-year-on-6-reasons-why-they-harm-us-all">Upfront NHS charges one year on - 6 reasons why they harm us all</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/feminist-fightback/why-healthcare-for-all-is-feminist-issue">Why healthcare for all is a feminist issue</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/rayah-feldman/pregnant-women-bear-brunt-of-government-s-clampdown-on-migrant-nhs-care">Pregnant women bear brunt of government’s clampdown on ‘migrant’ NHS care</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/ex-boss-of-england-s-nhs-blasts-nhs-migrant-policy-as-national-scandal">Ex-boss of England’s NHS blasts NHS migrant policy as a “national scandal”</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/erin-dexter/making-nhs-hostile-environment-for-migrants-demeans-our-country">Making the NHS a “hostile environment” for migrants demeans our country</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-country">
<div class="field-label"> Country or region:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
UK </div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSukourNHSUKJoanna DobbinThu, 20 Dec 2018 16:34:46 +0000Joanna Dobbin121097 at https://www.opendemocracy.netNurses raise concern about Royal College backing for NHS volunteers campaignhttps://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/rcn-members/nurses-raise-concern-about-royal-college-backing-for-mail-s-nhs-volunteers-campai
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>On Saturday the Daily Mail called for "an army of volunteers" to "transform" the NHS. Royal College of Nursing members have written to Dame Prof. Donna Kinnair, the acting head of the RCN, in response to their involvement in the "Helpforce" campaign.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/daily mail FP.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/daily mail FP.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="317" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Image: Daily Mail front page, Saturday 1st December, fair use.</span></span></span></p><p>Dear Professor Kinnair,</p>
<p>We, members of the RCN,
have been concerned by the <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6448083/Daily-Mail-launches-Christmas-campaign-calling-army-volunteers-transform-NHS.html">recent
articles in the Daily Mail</a> showing that our union is backing the campaign
to find an army of volunteers to transform the NHS.</p>
<p>We respect and value the
fantastic work of volunteers in our NHS, and believe that volunteers deserve
the utmost credit and thanks for their contributions. However, the idea of a
volunteer army is not a new concept, nor will this be the last time we see it
appear as long as our NHS remains chronically underfunded.</p>
<p>Only a year ago, the Red
Cross considered the state of the NHS to be a humanitarian crisis – this is not
a job for charity or volunteers to fix, nor will they be able to. As such, we
seek a more sustainable approach.</p>
<p>The harms caused by bed
and ambulance shortages and lack of safe staffing levels of Nurses, Doctors,
and other healthcare professionals cannot be changed or bailed out by goodwill
alone. Volunteers are wonderful, but are not the answer to this crisis, and
they should not be used as political fodder by a tabloid newspaper to allow
politicians and Chief Executives to avoid their responsibilities.</p>
<p>The Daily Mail has a
history of publishing bigoted and xenophobic rhetoric. There is no doubt that
their editorial has helped contribute to EU nurses being made to feel
unwelcome, which means many have left the NHS and the country.</p>
<p>Furthermore, patients
are regularly scapegoated in this paper for being the cause of excess demand on
NHS resources, fuelling a culture of blame when the issue of capacity is not
their fault.</p>
<p>Additionally, nurses are
regularly spoken about in a derogatory manner in the Daily Mail, which not only
affects our professional image, but our morale as well. Therefore, it seems
rather ironic for our professional body to be supporting a campaign to make the
NHS a better place.</p>
<p>Finally, it has been
noted by members that asking people to work for minimal or zero recompense is a
classic Conservative politician move, beginning in the UK with John Major’s
“Community Action” scheme. A massive public campaign such as this risks
pressurising people into volunteering, out of fear of being judged for not
signing up, with the most vulnerable in society – those already struggling to
get by, perhaps working more than one job – most at risk.</p>
<p>The RCN prides itself on
being a member-led organisation. After <a href="https://opendemocracy.net/ournhs/caroline-molloy/nhs-pay-deal-row-intensifies-as-nurses-call-for-union-leader-to-quit">recent
challenges within our union</a> whereby we felt we were not being heard, we
hoped that things may change. But with the backing of this campaign, we remain
concerned over the lack of consultation. We have checked, and are unable to
find or recall this being discussed with members, either at Congress or in the
wider arena.</p>
<p>We, the undersigned,
would like to know who was involved in the discussion and signing off on
backing this campaign, and when it was agreed.</p>
<p>We are worried about
associating ourselves with a newspaper that spreads so much division, and what
in our view is a “sticking plaster solution” to treat symptoms (capacity)
rather than the underlying cause (underfunding).</p>
<p>We look forward to
hearing from you.</p>
<p>Signed: Katie Sutton, Danielle&nbsp;Tiplady,&nbsp;Dan
Langley, Jon Gardner (and a wide range of other RCN members).</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/jenny-shepherd/will-volunteers-become-sticking-plaster-holding-nhs-together">Will volunteers become the sticking plaster holding the NHS together?</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/ruth-atkinson/brexit-and-nhs-we-need-to-fight-racist-discourse">Brexit and the NHS - why we all must fight the racist discourse</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/john-lister/nhs-staff-shortage-shock">NHS staff shortage “shock”…</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/caroline-molloy/nhs-staff-discover-they-will-get-hundreds-of-pounds-less-than-they-thought">NHS staff discover they will get hundreds of pounds less than many thought</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/caroline-molloy/nhs-pay-deal-row-intensifies-as-nurses-call-for-union-leader-to-quit">NHS pay deal row intensifies as nurses call for union leader to quit</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/mark-boothroyd/day-in-life-of-nhs-nurse-why-government-must-act-to-reduce-workloads">A day in the life of an NHS nurse - how our government is failing both patients and nurses</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/christine-mcnea/post-brexit-trade-unions-must-fight-to-protect-nhs-workers-including-those-fr">Post Brexit, trade unions must fight to protect NHS workers including those from the EU</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/caroline-molloy/what-does-brexit-vote-mean-for-nhs">What does the Brexit vote mean for the NHS?</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/mark-boothroyd/will-nhs-survive-another-winter-crisis">Will the NHS survive another winter crisis?</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/you-get-what-you-pay-for-landmark-study-exposes-nhs-privatisation-risks">You get what you pay for – landmark study exposes NHS privatisation risks</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/andy-benson/charities-help-out-nhs%E2%80%A6-or-do-they">Charities help out the NHS… or do they?</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/andy-benson/what-are-charities-for">What are charities for?</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSukourNHSRCN membersFri, 07 Dec 2018 13:53:51 +0000RCN members120898 at https://www.opendemocracy.netThe blueprint for dismantling the NHShttps://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/youssef-el-gingihy/blueprint-for-dismantling-nhs
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>Nostalgia won't save the NHS from the encroachment of market forces - only a broad-based mass movement can do that.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/blueprint.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/blueprint.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="314" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Image: Theresa May, NHS boss Simon Stevens and new Health Secretary Matt Hancock vist a health centre in North London in November 2018. Credit: PA Images/Andrew Matthews.</span></span></span></p><p>Since the first edition of <em>How to Dismantle the NHS in 10 Easy Steps</em>,
we’ve had the junior doctors' strike, the Conservative victory in the 2015
general election, the Corbyn phenomenon, the unexpected Brexit vote and the
arguably even more unexpected loss of the Conservative majority in 2017.</p>
<p>In the months that followed the
publication of my book in 2015, I found myself embarking on a journey that I
had scarcely even contemplated when I set out to write it. Only weeks after
publication, I was given a life-threatening diagnosis at the age of 34 and
underwent several months of intensive treatment. Fortunately I went on to make
a good recovery, all thanks to the NHS. From fighting to save the NHS, the NHS
saved my life. One dreads to think of the financial costs of such treatment in
a private insurance system. A 2009 Harvard University study found that the
majority of personal bankruptcies in the US - over a whopping 60% - were due to
healthcare costs.</p>
<p>At the outset of my illness,
50,000 junior doctors initiated strike action in protest at the government
imposition of a new contract. It would turn out to be the largest industrial
action of the 21st century in the UK. I even found myself addressing a large
crowd in Parliament square just a day after receiving the first dose of my
treatment. I had expected to be laid up in bed that weekend, but perhaps the
mobilisation of my colleagues had served to invigorate me (I may have overdone
it because things went downhill for the rest of that week!).</p>
<p>The junior doctor struggle was historic,
even if it ended with a whimper rather than a bang. Of course, the lessons of
this failure - some of them difficult to confront - must be evaluated if we are
to rescue a publicly funded, run, owned and accountable NHS. There have
certainly been times at which I have doubted my own analysis. That surely the
government cannot be dismantling our precious, cherished NHS. Yet nostalgia
will not be sufficient to salvage the NHS from the encroachment of market forces
and the logic of capitalism. (Incidentally, the phrase - dismantling the NHS -
appears to have entered the lexicon).</p>
<p>I was saddened yet unsurprised to
find my predictions coming true one by one – the redesign of the workforce
through the new junior doctor contract offering worse pay and conditions, the
withdrawal of the student nursing bursary, the creation of economies of scale
through chains of super hospitals and networks of GP surgeries ready for
corporate takeover and the restructuring of the NHS into US style integrated
care organisations.</p>
<p>My journey has taken me from
street demonstrations to the corridors of power in Westminster. I have met patients,
campaigners, MPs, health correspondents, current as well as former civil
servants, health ministers, shadow health teams, parliamentary select
committees, and party leaders. What has impressed itself upon me most is how
few have really grasped the direction of travel. </p>
<p>Policy has been increasingly concentrated
in the upper echelons of the political, corporate and financial elite during the
New Labour and Cameron eras. The culling of the civil service as a body of
expertise has nullified institutional resistance. Instead, novice special
advisors, often recruited from a tender age and/or seconded from corporate
backgrounds, make up the backbone of the political party machines. The outsourcing
of policy to think-tanks, the encirclement of Westminster by lobbyists, the
revolving door between government and the private sector, and funding of the
main parties all represent corporate capture of democracy and the privatisation
of the state. </p>
<p>The hollowing out of political
parties, the mainstream media, the civil service and academia is one of the
ghastly legacies of neoliberalism. It is necessary to rebuild the structures of
civil society from the grassroots up. If history teaches us one thing, it is
that only a broad-based mass movement can propel progress and save the NHS. </p>
<p>The NHS cannot be preserved whilst
the toxic effects of deregulated, free market neoliberalism continue to be
unleashed. Far reaching, progressive change – from public services run by
workers, citizens and communities, a green economy, the reversal of the death
grip of financialisation, the democratisation of the economy, the dismantling
of the offshore system as well as public investment and spending - will all be
needed if we are to continue to have access to equitable, public healthcare. </p>
<p>When I wrote my book, I did so as
a concerned doctor disturbed by a government ideologically fixated on
privatisation against the wishes of the British people overwhelmingly in favour
of a publicly funded, run and owned NHS. Since then, my unexpected illness has
only reaffirmed my resolve to fight, alongside many others, to guarantee the
provision of universal, comprehensive healthcare free at the point of need. </p>
<p><em>This is an edited extract from the new, updated and expanded edition of
“How to Dismantle the NHS in 10 Easy Steps”, <a href="http://www.zero-books.net/books/how-to-dismantle-NHS-10-easy-steps-2nd-edition">available
from Zero Books</a>.</em></p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/stewart-player/taking-politics-out-of-nhs-or-constructing-elitist-consensus">Taking politics out of the NHS? Or constructing an elitist ‘consensus’?</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/nick-carpenter/not-fair-not-safe-6-reasons-junior-doctors-are-preparing-to-strike">Not fair, not safe - 6 reasons junior doctors are preparing to strike</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/caroline-molloy/what-does-brexit-vote-mean-for-nhs">What does the Brexit vote mean for the NHS?</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSukourNHSYoussef El-GingihyMon, 03 Dec 2018 13:41:22 +0000Youssef El-Gingihy120813 at https://www.opendemocracy.netBrexit or no Brexit, life-changing medicines already aren’t getting throughhttps://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/heidi-chow/brexit-or-no-brexit-life-changing-medicines-already-aren-t-getting-through
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>Big Pharma is hurting the NHS at its core – here's what we need to do, if we're bold enough.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/drugs.jpg%21d" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/drugs.jpg%21d" alt="" title="" width="460" height="307" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Image: PXhere, CC0</span></span></span></p><p>Warnings of <a href="https://www.hsj.co.uk/pharmaceuticals/exclusive-no-deal-brexit-will-force-up-price-of-generic-drugs/7023454.article">price
hikes</a>, supply problems and stockpiling under a no-deal Brexit has
pushed medicines into the media spotlight of late – and no wonder. Yet the
problems of accessing essential medicines go beyond whether or not a Brexit
deal is reached. Many vital medicines are already not getting through.</p>
<p>Last week NHS England published its <span><a href="https://mailgate.globaljustice.org.uk/owa/redir.aspx?C=b4d4785dfdf44df3b434407d5b135869&amp;URL=https%3a%2f%2fdigital.nhs.uk%2fdata-and-information%2fpublications%2fstatistical%2fprescribing-costs-in-hospitals-and-the-community%2f2017-18" target="_blank">spending on medicines for the past
year which amounted to a staggering £20 billion.</a></span> That’s
an 11 percent increase from the previous year and a 55 percent hike since 2010.
For anyone following news about the NHS, that £20 billion figure may seem
familiar as it’s the same amount the government announced it would be injecting
into the NHS in the recent autumn budget. Yet even with this financial boost,
the drugs bill is still rising faster than the NHS funding to pay for it. </p>
<p>One major reason for this is the price
inflation of essential drugs. The extortionate prices being charged by big
pharmaceutical companies are a financial drain on an already squeezed NHS
budget. Yet at the same time, patients are being denied access to other
effective drugs, even though they exist, because their price tag is just too
high for the NHS.</p>
<p>Dunise is a Scottish breast cancer
patient, working with campaign group Just Treatment. <span><a href="https://mailgate.globaljustice.org.uk/owa/redir.aspx?C=b4d4785dfdf44df3b434407d5b135869&amp;URL=https%3a%2f%2fjusttreatment.org%2fdunise%2f" target="_blank">She has not been able to access breast cancer drug, pertuzumab
(Perjeta)</a></span>&nbsp;in&nbsp;Scotland
because it is too expensive. Her story is not unique, but with the NHS
rejecting or rationing drugs because of price, it is becoming more widespread.
After years of negotiations with the government, drug manufacturer Vertex is
still not offering an affordable price for its breakthrough Cystic Fibrosis
drug <span><a href="https://mailgate.globaljustice.org.uk/owa/redir.aspx?C=b4d4785dfdf44df3b434407d5b135869&amp;URL=https%3a%2f%2fwww.independent.co.uk%2fnews%2fhealth%2forkambi-cystic-fibrosis-drug-nhs-girl-funding-family-health-medicine-judicial-review-a8633686.html" target="_blank">leaving patients unable to access
an effective life-changing treatment.</a></span></p>
<p>This financial burden is only going to
increase as the first wave of new advanced cancer treatments called CAR-Ts –
that reprogram the body’s own immune cells to attack malignant cells – are
priced in the region of several hundred thousand pounds. The U.S. list price
for Yescarta (CAR-T cell therapy for untreatable forms of blood cancer) is
$373,000. The UK price is confidential but <span><a href="https://mailgate.globaljustice.org.uk/owa/redir.aspx?C=b4d4785dfdf44df3b434407d5b135869&amp;URL=https%3a%2f%2fwww.reuters.com%2farticle%2fus-gilead-sciences-britain%2fuk-rejects-gileads-car-t-cancer-cell-therapy-as-too-expensive-idUSKCN1LD16V" target="_blank">the therapy was rejected by NICE</a></span>,
the body which decides whether the NHS can afford a drug, in August.</p>
<p>High drug prices hit patients the
hardest and hurt the NHS at its very core. Though we treasure the principle of
public healthcare for all, free at the point of use, this is undermined by our
system of privatised medicines. We have to question what is going wrong.</p>
<p>Big pharmaceutical
companies defend high prices by claiming that they need to recoup their huge
research and development (R&amp;D) costs, but often there is little
transparency around these costs. Many of the big pharmaceutical companies are<span> spending</span> while others are spending <span><a href="https://mailgate.globaljustice.org.uk/owa/redir.aspx?C=b4d4785dfdf44df3b434407d5b135869&amp;URL=https%3a%2f%2fwww.bbc.co.uk%2fnews%2fbusiness-28212223" target="_blank">more on marketing than on R&amp;D</a></span>. Also much of the early stage, riskier research
that leads to breakthroughs is publicly funded. Some estimates say that <span><a href="https://mailgate.globaljustice.org.uk/owa/redir.aspx?C=b4d4785dfdf44df3b434407d5b135869&amp;URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.unsgaccessmeds.org%2ffinal-report%2f" target="_blank">between one-third and two-thirds of
all global spend on R&amp;D comes from the public.</a></span></p>
<p>So what can be done about this? We need
to move away from the current business model that prioritises short-term
shareholder value and relies on financialised practices such as share
buy-backs. It's a corporate-driven model where decisions are made based on
profit and financial returns not on public health need and patient access. This
model does not treat health as a human right and is not delivering the health
innovation that we need and even when it does, it’s at prices that governments
can’t afford.</p>
<p>Instead, as we explored in a&nbsp;<span><a href="https://mailgate.globaljustice.org.uk/owa/redir.aspx?C=b4d4785dfdf44df3b434407d5b135869&amp;URL=https%3a%2f%2fwww.globaljustice.org.uk%2fnews%2f2018%2foct%2f15%2fhealth-innovation-system-broken-and-failing-patients" target="_blank">recent report</a></span>&nbsp;with University College
London, STOPAIDS and Just Treatment, we need bold reforms to re-orientate the
whole model so that the public have greater democratic control over our
pharmaceutical system and where the incentives are radically changed. Right
now, the industry is incentivised to develop new drugs by high prices. This
could be changed so that innovators are rewarded with upfront innovation
inducement prizes rather than patent-based monopolies. The prizes would include
stipulations that the technology would be freely licenced to enable different
manufacturers to compete and bring prices down.</p>
<p>The public sector makes significant
contributions to R&amp;D but publicly-funded breakthroughs often get licensed
to private companies, which then set high prices and extract excessive profits.
Taxpayers pay twice, first for the research and then in high prices. In 2016,<span><a href="https://mailgate.globaljustice.org.uk/owa/redir.aspx?C=b4d4785dfdf44df3b434407d5b135869&amp;URL=https%3a%2f%2fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2fnews%2f2017%2f10%2f22%2fpublic-forced-pay-twice-high-cost-drugs-campaigners-say%2f" target="_blank">the NHS spent £1 billion on drugs
in 2016 where public money had funded their research and development</a></span>,
and yesterday’s figures show this has risen to £1.3 billion. In order to ensure
public returns from public investment, conditions should be attached to public
funding. These conditions should stipulate that drugs based on publicly-funded
research should be affordable and accessible.</p>
<p>Something that the UK government could
do today would be to issue crown use licenses on drugs whose prohibitive
pricing creates patient access problems. This allows other companies to produce
such drugs and enables lower prices. <span><a href="https://mailgate.globaljustice.org.uk/owa/redir.aspx?C=b4d4785dfdf44df3b434407d5b135869&amp;URL=https%3a%2f%2fwww.wto.org%2fenglish%2ftratop_e%2ftrips_e%2fpublic_health_faq_e.htm" target="_blank">The right to do this is enshrined
in a WTO global agreement on intellectual property</a></span> and so
the UK government should use all tools available to push for patient access on
vital medicines. </p>
<p>Extra money going into the NHS (itself
subject to review if no Brexit deal is reached) will provide some much-needed
breathing space to a cash-starved NHS, but not if the money is siphoned off to
big drug companies through charging extortionate prices. Doing nothing is not
an option. The financial cost to the NHS is unsustainable and the human cost of
denying access to medicines is inexcusable. It shouldn’t take the shock of
Brexit for politicians to act.</p>
<p><em>Heidi Chow is pharmaceuticals
campaigner at Global Justice Now.</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/great-british-drug-rip-off">The great British drug rip-off</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/diarmaid-mcdonald/big-pharma-now-helping-to-run-kings-college-hospital">Big pharma now helping to run King&#039;s College Hospital?</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/mike-marqusee/held-hostage-by-big-pharma">Held hostage by Big Pharma</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/openindia/ranjitha-balasubramanyam/patents-versus-patients-case-for-affordable-medicine">Patents versus patients: the case for affordable medicine</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-country">
<div class="field-label"> Country or region:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
UK </div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSukourNHSUKNHShealthBrexitHeidi ChowThu, 29 Nov 2018 10:52:39 +0000Heidi Chow120752 at https://www.opendemocracy.netRight-wing think tank accused of promoting tobacco and oil industry “propaganda” in schoolshttps://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexitinc/adam-ramsay-peter-geoghegan/right-wing-think-tank-accused-of-promoting-tobacco-oil-indu
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>The Institute of Economic Affairs’ magazine distributed to tens of
thousands of British schoolchildren promotes tobacco tax cuts, climate
change denial, tax havens, and privatising the NHS – but doesn’t say
where its money comes from </p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/553846/11443527473_d1730c4b4e_o_0.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/553846/11443527473_d1730c4b4e_o_0.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="337" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>“Economic Affairs” published an article arguing against the scientific consensus on climate change. Image, Quarrie Photography.</span></span></span></p><p dir="ltr">The Institute of Economic Affairs has been accused of “pumping seemingly paid-for propaganda” into schools after analysis by openDemocracy found that its free magazine for A-Level students has carried articles arguing against tobacco taxes and climate change science, and in favour of NHS privatisation. The magazine does not tell readers who funds the IEA. </p><p dir="ltr">The IEA, a registered educational charity, sends copies of the magazine <a href="https://iea.org.uk/ea-magazine/">EA</a> free of charge to every school teaching A-Level economics or business studies in the UK. </p><p dir="ltr">The influential ‘think tank’ does not disclose its funding but it has received money from <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jun/01/thinktanks-big-tobacco-funds-smoking">British American Tobacco</a>, <a href="https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/07/30/bp-funding-institute-of-economic-affairs-gambling/">oil giant BP</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/31/jersey-finance-paid-iea-to-trash-hotbeds-of-tax-evasion-claims">Jersey Finance</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/30/casino-owners-donated-iea-after-thinktanks-pro-gambling-report">gambling</a> lobbyists and <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexitinc/adam-ramsay-peter-geoghegan/dominic-raab-is-he-iea-s-man-in-government">right wing US foundations</a> pushing to privatise the NHS. While articles on many of these topics have appeared in the IEA’s schools magazine, it does not disclose these financial links. </p><p dir="ltr">The IEA has also argued that Brexit could be a boon for Britain. Its head of international trade, Shanker Singham, recently accompanied pro-Brexit MPs including David Davis on a <a href="https://www.fginsight.com/news/ex-brexit-secretary-lobbies-washington-for-trade-deal-beneficial-to-us-farmers--74921">trade tour to the US</a>, talking up American access to UK markets. </p><p dir="ltr">A shadow cabinet minister has called for the Charity Commission to broaden its <a href="https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/charity-commission-assessing-concerns-over-think-thank-iea-after-guardian-investigation.html">ongoing probe of the IEA</a> to include the schools magazine.</p><p dir="ltr">Labour shadow cabinet office minister Jon Trickett said: “It is a debasement of both politics and education when an organisation, posing as a charity, pumps seemingly paid-for propaganda into our schools. </p><p dir="ltr">“In the interests of transparency and democracy, we need to know who funds these organisations and what exactly their purpose is. Because what they say, and what they actually do, too often simply doesn’t match up.” </p><p dir="ltr">Tamasin Cave from Spinwatch, which investigates the PR and lobbying industry, said "we are now awake to the fact that the IEA is not an independent think tank. It is a lobby group for private interests. Most are secret, but we know it is funded by oil giants, the tobacco industry and a tax haven. </p><p dir="ltr">“The IEA’s magazine provides a means for these people to feed their propaganda into schools, whether that’s climate change denial, or opposition to public health policies. Just as the public are exposed to it through the IEA appearing on the BBC.”</p><p dir="ltr">When asked by openDemocracy how the magazine was funded, the IEA would only say that the think tank covered the costs of the <a href="http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends51/0000235351_AC_20161231_E_C.PDF">47,000</a> copies sent to students every year. The think tank’s funders are not disclosed publicly, however it denies that its editorial content is driven by its donors interests.</p><h2 dir="ltr">Opposing tobacco taxes… and funded by a tobacco company</h2><p dir="ltr">Since 2013, the IEA’s magazine has frequently featured articles arguing in favour of positions supported by groups that have been shown to fund the right-wing think tank. The spring 2014 edition, for example, includes an article <a href="https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/EA-Spring-soundbite-SMALL_0.pdf">arguing against</a> “sin taxes", including those on cigarettes and alcohol. <br /><br />The magazine does not mention that the IEA receives regular donations from <a href="http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Institute_of_Economic_Affairs#2015_.22Broadly_Similar_Basis_to_2014.22">British American Tobacco</a>, including roughly £40,000 <a href="http://www.tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Institute_of_Economic_Affairs#2015_.22Broadly_Similar_Basis_to_2014.22">in 2014</a>. The group also has links with the <a href="https://iea.org.uk/events/exiting-the-eu-reclaiming-trade-sovereignty/">sugar industry</a>, and has argued against sugar taxes.</p><h2 dir="ltr">Climate change denial… and funded by BP </h2><p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/553846/8735887323_697b6d9039_z.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/553846/8735887323_697b6d9039_z.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="288" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Dust cloud. Image, Zooey, some rights reserved.</span></span></span></p><p dir="ltr">In autumn 2013, the magazine <a href="https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/EA-Autumn-soundbiite-lores.pdf">ran an article by Roger Bate</a> entitled “20 years denouncing eco-militants”, in which he argued that “evidence of climate impact is still hard to prove, and harm even more difficult to establish”, and dismissed calls for a ban on the insecticide DDT as “green alarmism”. </p><p dir="ltr">These are not the only subjects in which Bate has swum against the tide of scientific consensus. In the late 1990s, while he was <a href="https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=grfn0073">funded by the tobacco industry</a>, Bate argued against the science which shows that exposure to tobacco causes cancer. In the words of The Ecologist, he also “<a href="https://theecologist.org/2018/sep/19/secret-love-affair-between-roger-bate-and-big-tobacco">midwived British climate denial</a>”. </p><p dir="ltr">The magazine did not inform its student readers that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that evidence of climate impact and harm are both proved. Likewise, the magazine did not inform the pupils that Bate’s employer, the American Enterprise Institute, has long been <a href="https://exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=9">funded by ExxonMobile</a>, while the Institute for Economics Affairs itself is funded by <a href="https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/07/30/bp-funding-institute-of-economic-affairs-gambling/">British Petroleum</a>. </p><h2 dir="ltr">Promoting privatisations and tax havens</h2><p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/553846/Elizabeth_Castle_in_front_of_Noirmont,_Isle_of_Jersey_(2006)_0.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/553846/Elizabeth_Castle_in_front_of_Noirmont,_Isle_of_Jersey_(2006)_0.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="283" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Elizabeth Castle, Jersey. Image, Luc Van Braekel, wikimedia commons.</span></span></span></p><p dir="ltr">Articles written by IEA staffer Kristian Niemietz in several editions advocate privatisation of the NHS. But at no point does the magazine mention that in 2014, the think tank received a grant of $155,000 from the US-based Templeton Foundation to “<a href="https://templeton.org/grant/encouraging-independence-and-enterprise-for-a-healthy-old-age">seek alternatives</a>” to “public, pay-as-you-go financed systems of pensions, disability insurance, healthcare and long-term care”, and promote privatisation of each of these areas, according to the Templeton Foundation's website. Niemietz was one of two project leaders for the grant.</p><p dir="ltr">&nbsp;<span><img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/hzJiChO7ZTFsqLjy9DBAFbo8TAJIcCl5fwE82GwtMJzDSeYGXon8-pcH51E45-VunX1R44Cjsih60ZKrrK9Ov57z7yyGRXaYIJFrB6HC8q4GCqwk7lw26VK-1z9bVq-7WV-pK0o6" alt="" width="427" height="302" /></span></p><p dir="ltr">The glossy 64-page magazine has also called for the <a href="https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/EA-Spring-2015_CITY-VIEW.pdf">BBC</a> to be privatised.<br /><span><img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/UNPsmHt7luGsfv64YcBIoMM7VWPrpIe8NEr_MUnLyiXDLNDWlg_Nu1lBCY2SgRvK1Xx4KwUuEYXDZn3jcfzOe6p_6mtDLRRtkT7hJwbFU5JmizuhUznlni51HT-g5CBW87E_iSiK" alt="" width="259" height="320" /></span></p><p dir="ltr">An autumn 2016 piece in the magazine’s Idealog section was labelled as a “defence of <a href="https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/EA-AUTUMN-2016_FOR-WEB.pdf">tax havens</a>”. The IEA has long promoted tax havens, and does not disclose how this work is funded. However, earlier this year, it was revealed that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/31/jersey-finance-paid-iea-to-trash-hotbeds-of-tax-evasion-claims">Jersey Finance</a>, which promotes Jersey as a financial centre, paid for an IEA report published in June this year that attacked the idea that offshore financial centres were “hotbeds of tax evasion”. </p><h2 dir="ltr">Pro-Brexit</h2><p dir="ltr">In 2015, before the European Union referendum, EA carried a double-page spread by economist Patrick Minford entitled ‘<a href="https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/EA-Spring-2015_VIEWPOINT.pdf">Why Britain should leave the EU</a>’. The piece concluded that the case for Brexit was “overwhelming”. Minford’s modelling has since been described as “<a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/08/23/economists-for-brexit-predictions-are-inconsistent-with-basic-facts-of-international-trade/">inconsistent with the basic facts of international trade</a>” by fellow economists. </p><p><span><img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/AHwP-ZI6kH5Lq-gRA3NPaEqa8KbHPbLoVZDIlJ4042q-4KzLZUYchSTkNx2XpiC-gkFj34hCoFBbvTEhEkAr0CA1LOpZjU-XAms0e82dP854AgGbpBLG44Byi_A6dq76KGTwTkAU" alt="" width="504" height="402" /></span></p><p dir="ltr">EA did not carry any article in favour of remaining in the EU before the referendum. The IEA has become a favourite think tank of many Brexiters, <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/09/28/the-ieas-plan-a-for-free-trade-is-the-product-of-fanaticism/">publishing papers arguing that Britain would benefit</a> from leaving the customs union and single market.</p><h2 dir="ltr">Under investigation</h2><p dir="ltr">In July, the Charity Commission announced that it was investigating the IEA after an <a href="https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/07/29/a-hard-brexit-think-tank-offered-a-prospective-us-agribusiness-donor-the-chance-to-influence-its-report-on-green-brexit/">undercover sting</a> by The Guardian and Greenpeace revealed the identity of a number of the IEA’s funders, ands that senior staff had offered potential US donors access to government ministers and civil servants in order to fund its work on post-Brexit trade deals.</p><p dir="ltr">The IEA was recently named in <a href="https://www.bindmans.com/uploads/files/documents/17_July_2018_-_Particulars_of_Claim_(As_Lodged).pdf">court papers</a> as one of a number of “linked” right-wing think tanks which work closely together and operate out of offices a few metres from each other in Westminster. Other groups include the TaxPayers’ Alliance, <a href="https://www.desmog.co.uk/directory/vocabulary/14991">Civitas</a>, the Adam Smith Institute, Leave Means Leave, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Brexit Central, and the Centre for Policy Studies. </p><p dir="ltr">Earlier this month, shadow chancellor <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/11/brexit-whistleblower-shahmir-sanni-taxpayers-alliance-concedes-it-launched-smears">John McDonnell told The Guardian</a> that the IEA are lobbyists, not thinktanks”, and called on the BBC to reflect that when introducing their spokespeople.</p><h2 dir="ltr">Powerful friends</h2><p dir="ltr">The IEA, founded in 1955 by Anthony Fisher, describes itself as the "UK’s original free market think tank". It has the charitable objects of "the promotion and advancement of learning by research into economic and political science and by educating the public therein", according to its entry on the Charity Commission’s online register.</p><p dir="ltr">IEA representatives regularly appear in the news media, and the think tank has strong links with a number of senior Conservative figures, including <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/new-health-secretary-matt-hancock-12891819">Matt Hancock</a> and <a href="https://opendemocracy.net/uk/brexitinc/adam-ramsay-peter-geoghegan/dominic-raab-is-he-iea-s-man-in-government">Dominic Raab</a>. The former Brexit secretary credits the IEA with supporting a book he co-authored with Tory MPs, Britannia Unchained, that described British workers as “<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19300051">among the worst idlers</a>”.</p><p dir="ltr">The IEA regularly receives the <a href="http://whofundsyou.org/">lowest rating</a> for transparency from campaign group Who Funds You? The American Friends of the IEA, a US entity set up to allow US-based corporations and individuals to donate to the institute, raised at least $1.69m in the past decade, according to recent analysis by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/28/us-groups-raise-millions-to-support-rightwing-uk-thinktanks">The Guardian</a>.</p><p dir="ltr">Asked who funded the schools magazine, the IEA’s director Mark Littlewood said: “EA is funded by the Institute of Economic Affairs. It is sent to over 99% of schools in the UK that teach economics – more than 1,300 schools across the country.”</p><p dir="ltr">EA is circulated to students in both private and state schools across the UK. Contributors include IEA staff and members of other prominent right-wing groups from both sides of the Atlantic, Including the Cato Institute and the TaxPayers’ Alliance. </p><p dir="ltr">As well as publishing the magazine, IEA research staff tour the UK <a href="https://iea.org.uk/list-of-sixth-form-events/">visiting schools</a>, hosting 20 conferences in the past financial year. Many of these conferences follow similar themes to the pages of EA. In February, lower-sixth economics students in Portsmouth listened to talks that included a discussion on “why the minimum wage may not necessarily help those it is intended to”. Another conference looked at “whether there really is sexist prejudice in businesses or whether campaigns manipulated stats for their benefit”.</p><p dir="ltr">Responding to a question from openDemocracy about how the IEA provides “balanced and neutral” information to students attending their talks, IEA executive director Mark Littlewood said:</p><p dir="ltr">“The talks given by the IEA provide an analysis of factual evidence and data.</p><p dir="ltr">“Furthermore, the teachings of free-market economics almost always relates to topical or ‘politically charged’ issues of the day. So does any lesson in any school about history: the political history of the UK, the advent of female suffrage, the founding of the National Health Service, the destruction of South African apartheid by Nelson Mandela and the ANC, and an endless list of other issues.</p><p dir="ltr">“We suggest this content should not be banned, and it would be unwise to believe that some ‘neutral’ state agency is best placed to determine the ‘truth’ as against ‘opinion’.” &nbsp;</p><p dir="ltr">Responding to questions about the funding of the EA magazine, a spokesperson for the IEA said, “The Institute’s editorial and policy output – in both our reports and our educational material – is decided by its research team and Academic Advisory Council only. Any funding we receive does not, under any circumstances, influence the focus or conclusions of our research. &nbsp;</p><p dir="ltr">“Your insinuation is that we only purport certain analysis and views because we are paid to. This is categorically untrue. If you really believe that IEA authors and spokespeople are socialist, tax-loving, big-state advocates at heart, who only advocate free-market economics for a pay cheque, then you are badly mistaken”.</p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/uk/brexitinc/peter-geoghegan-adam-ramsay/revealed-how-uk-s-powerful-right-wing-think-tanks-and-conse">Revealed: how the UK’s powerful right-wing think tanks and Conservative MPs work together</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/uk/brexitinc/adam-ramsay-peter-geoghegan/dominic-raab-is-he-iea-s-man-in-government">Dominic Raab: is he the IEA’s man in government?</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/peter-geoghegan-jenna-corderoy/mapped-shanker-singhams-unparalleled-access-to-government-ministers-a">Mapped – hard Brexit guru Singham&#039;s &#039;unparalleled&#039; access to government </a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/uk/brexitinc/adam-ramsay-peter-geoghegan/liam-fox-caught-in-fresh-lobbyists-as-advisors-scandal">Liam Fox caught in fresh “lobbyists as advisers” scandal</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/uk/brexitinc/peter-geoghegan-jenna-corderoy/revealed-new-evidence-of-hard-brexit-svengali-shanker-si">Revealed: New evidence of ‘Hard Brexit svengali’ Shanker Singham’s ‘unparalleled access’ to senior government figures</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ukukourNHSBrexitInstitute of Economic Affairsclimate changeClimate change denialtax havenstobaccoAmerican Enterprise InstituteDUP Dark MoneyBrexit Inc.Peter GeogheganAdam RamsayWed, 28 Nov 2018 12:45:22 +0000Adam Ramsay and Peter Geoghegan120732 at https://www.opendemocracy.netWhy politicians need to 'take responsibility' for children's health toohttps://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/al-aynsley-green/why-politicians-need-to-take-responsibility-for-childrens-health-too
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>This government is betraying children on a grand scale, and making positive ‘choices’ impossible.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/child poverty.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/child poverty.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="276" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Image: Clacton, Essex. Credit: Nick Ansell/PA Images, all rights reserved.</span></span></span></p><p>Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health rightly points out
that preventing ill health is crucially important in tackling the soaring costs
of health care. This week he <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-responsibility-health-prevention-matt-hancock-a8617501.html">exhorts
people to “take responsibility” for their health</a>. </p>
<p>But he omits to say that much adult ill health has its roots in
childhood. And current government policy is not only failing to give children
to the best start in life, but creating an economic environment driven by
austerity where parents and families are unable to take control of their
children’s health.</p>
<p>This government is betraying children on a grand scale, and making
positive ‘choices’ impossible. </p>
<p>Poverty stalks the land with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/sep/16/new-study-finds-4.5-million-uk-children-living-in-poverty">more
than 4.5 million children living below the breadline</a>, over half of them being
trapped there for years. It is hardly surprising that those in hardship are
more likely to have poor health, bombarded with pressures to eat cheap fast
food, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45420295">unable to afford
to meet government healthy eating recommendations</a> and without time or <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/04/childhood-obesity-linked-to-air-pollution-from-vehicles?CMP=twt_gu">healthy
environments to take exercise in</a>. </p>
<p>Shamefully <a href="http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/the-extra-costs-of-raising-a-disabled-child/">poverty
is especially prevalent in families with a child with a disability</a>. Just
imagine what it is like trying to provide for healthy food, sport and exercise
in a family with a disabled child requiring 24-hour care seven days a week. </p>
<p>Take the plight of mother Jo Cousins who is facing the loss of
vital support for her disabled son Seth as a result of <a href="https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/our-children-are-so-vulnerable-mother-wants-northampton-respite-centre-s-funding-reinstated-so-it-can-continue-to-provide-invaluable-service-to-her-disabled-son-1-8456697">Northamptonshire’s
dire finances closing the centre for respite care</a>. </p>
<p>The difficulties these families face is exacerbated by the “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/06/mps-call-for-review-of-pointlessly-cruel-benefit-sanctions?CMP=share_btn_tw">pointlessly
cruel” benefit sanctions</a> identified by MPs to be arbitrary and punitive.
</p>
<p>The debacle over changes to Universal Credit expose a ‘group
think’ political mindset out of touch with real people and their lives
alongside a stark lack of compassion for the most vulnerable.</p>
<p>The heart-rending report of a <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/universal-credit-girl-forced-beg-13546259">9-year
old child begging a charity for any work going to pay for food</a> since her
mum had died and her dad had lost his job is a devastating indictment of the
effects of this political attitude driven by the Treasury. </p>
<p>The number of homeless children and those needing protection is
soaring, with many authorities failing to intervene until complex cases reach
crisis point; <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/15/child-protection-inadequate-ofsted-report">around
two thirds of all looked after children (around 47,000) are under the care of councils
that, say Ofsted, are inadequate or require improvement</a>. </p>
<p>Eight years of savage austerity have devastated children’s
services so that we now have some of the <a href="https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-10-british-state-betrayed-children-countries.html">worst
outcomes for children</a> across health, social care, education, youth justice
and poverty in the developed world. </p>
<p>The health of children overall is dismal including soaring rates of
emotional and mental ill health – despite the fact that <a href="https://www.bma.org.uk/collective-voice/policy-and-research/public-and-population-health/child-health/growing-up-in-the-uk">the
challenges have been well known for at least 20 years</a>. Over 150 children
every day are being turned away from CAMHS (child and adolescent mental health
services) with some children being <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/08/gps-telling-children-exaggerate-mental-health-symptoms-want/">advised
by GPs to exaggerate their symptoms to get access to treatment</a>.</p>
<p>Over one third of children are obese, we have one of the lowest
rates of breastfeeding in Europe, poor control of diabetes, and inadequate
transition to adult services for children with physical and learning
disabilities. It all points to <a href="https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/state-child-health">massive challenges
for families and children created by government policies</a>. </p>
<p>But it is not only in health and social care where there are shocking
examples of disastrous political policy, indifference to the best interests of
children, and an ideological fixation on making ‘choices’ which are, to many,
an impossible dream.</p>
<p>Thus, outstanding schools teach a minority of children where
parents can pay for independent education or live in the catchment of an
excellent state school; but there are countless other children whose parents
can’t. Children whose schools are hit by a government-triggered <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/teachers-crisis-education-leaving-profession-jobs-market-droves-who-would-be-one-a7591821.html">exodus
of experienced teachers</a>. A government that has <a href="https://www.tes.com/news/teacher-training-we-are-witnessing-dangerous-lowering-bar-entry">lowered
the entrance requirements for teacher training</a>, and has cut school funding
so deeply that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/sep/28/a-complete-crisis-2000-school-leaders-rally-against-cuts">thousands
of head teachers have taken to the streets to protest</a>, that has imposed a
narrow test-oriented curriculum driven by zealots teaching to the test. A
government that dismisses the stress and even child exclusions caused by the
perverse incentives of SATS league tables. </p>
<p>It all points to an education system not fit for purpose today. Against
this we have a <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/school-funding-cuts-dfe-uk-statistics-authority-headteachers-investigation-a8569116.html">minister
being exposed to distort the statistics on spending for schools, deepening
public distrust of politicians</a>.</p>
<p>Alongside poverty and inequality of hope there is the <a href="http://www.revolving-doors.org.uk/file/2230/download?token=6OH6Xo32.">revolving
door of young offenders returning to prison</a> in a ‘system’ attuned to the
Victorian ethos of punishment and control. </p>
<p>An objective observer such as an alien from Mars would see here
today a government that appears oblivious to the importance of children in
society.</p>
<p>Through an economic lens we need healthy, educated, creative,
happy children equipped with the life skills for those who can to become
confident adults and parents in due course. And those who can’t through disability
or disadvantage must be supported to develop their full potential. Surely, this
should drive political policy, but it doesn’t. </p>
<p>My new book “The British Betrayal of Childhood” highlights the
need for a “paradigm shift” in our public and political attitude to children,
modelling an approach from the very best countries for children such as Canada,
Holland and Finland. </p>
<p>Building local community responsibility for children is key. “It
takes a village to raise a child”, as they say. In other words, the ‘nurture’
of children should be everybody’s business – parents and families, schools,
faiths, businesses, voluntary and statutory services – all driven by the best
interests of children in policies and practices that address their needs.</p>
<p><a href="http://earlylearning.ubc.ca/">The Human Early
Learning Partnership model in Canada</a> describes the local<em> </em>context through ‘mapping’
children’s lives from routine data. The concept is simple – to ‘map’ by
postcode locality data on children’s lives – inputs, outputs and outcomes
across health, education, social care, youth justice and poverty. These data
are used by childhood coalitions, schools, government ministries and
researchers to inform advocacy for children’s needs, and to recommend changes
to policies and funding. </p>
<p>There is incontrovertible evidence that we really are
betraying our children on a grand scale in Britain today. Rather than exhorting
the poor, the young and the marginalised to exercise ‘choices’ they simply
don’t have, I call on politicians of all parties to listen to the reality of
child and family life, understand the enormity of what has to be done and
produce a coherent long term cross-party political agreement on what we should
be trying to achieve for our children. This can then be the basis for
consensual, common sense policies to improve outcomes. Politicians have
responsibilities for children too! </p>
<p><em>Sir Al Aynsley-Green’s book
<a href="https://www.routledge.com/The-British-Betrayal-of-Childhood-Challenging-Uncomfortable-Truths-and/Aynsley-Green/p/book/9781138297920">‘The
British Betrayal of Childhood’ is published now by Routledge</a></em>.</p><p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/childhood.png" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/childhood.png" alt="" title="" width="229" height="361" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'></span></span></p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/shinealight/rebecca-omonira-oyekanmi/how-mental-health-services-fail-young-people-and-wh">How mental health services fail young people and what can be done about it</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/5050/shauneen-lambe-maryrachel-mccabe/how-we-treat-children-in-uk-dark-side-of-our-soul">How we treat children in the UK: the dark side of our soul</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/uk/ian-sinclair/universal-credit-internationally-unique-in-its-harshness-and-headed-for-7-million-of">Universal Credit - internationally “unique” in its harshness, and headed for 7 million of us</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/shinealight/al-aynsley-green/who-is-speaking-for-britains-children-and-young-people-challenge-to-chi">Who is speaking for Britain&#039;s children and young people?: a challenge to the children’s sector</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-country">
<div class="field-label"> Country or region:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
UK </div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSukourNHSUKhealthChildrenAl Aynsley-GreenFri, 09 Nov 2018 06:00:00 +0000Al Aynsley-Green120507 at https://www.opendemocracy.netWhy healthcare for all is a feminist issuehttps://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/feminist-fightback/why-healthcare-for-all-is-feminist-issue
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>Health charges for migrants are hitting women hardest. Yesterday feminist activists changed the sign on the new Millicent Fawcett statue in Parliament square in protest.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/group photo.JPG" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/group photo.JPG" alt="" title="" width="460" height="345" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Image: Protestors in parliament square yesterday. Credit: Feminist Fightback</span></span></span></p><p>Yesterday dressed as suffragettes, activists from Feminist Fightback changed the sign on the new Millicent Fawcett statue in Parliament
Square from ‘Courage calls to Courage Everywhere’ to ‘Feminists demand healthcare
for all,’ in protest against NHS charges for migrants.</p>
<p>“We took
this action because universal healthcare, like universal suffrage, is a
feminist issue”, explained Eleanor Smith, who took part in the action. “This year marks 100 years since some women got
the vote, but women under thirty and 2 million working-class women who did not
meet the property qualification had to wait another 10 years. Today, there are
exclusions too. Some people are eligible for free abortion and pregnancy
services, which feminists have fought for, while others must pay enormous
charges for the care they need.”</p>
<p>Migrants
who are not considered ‘settled’ in the UK are now charged for these essential,
life-saving services at 150% of the cost. Abortion is charged up front, costing
£1,300 in an NHS hospital. Birth, including pre and post-natal care, is charged
after the event and costs up to £7,000.</p>
<p>Hospitals may pass debts on to a debt collector who will harass
the patient. In fear of debt, deportation or because they are unable to pay,
some people do not access the healthcare they need, with devastating
consequences.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Beatrice
came to the UK in 2012 from West Africa as a student and was disowned by her
family after becoming pregnant. Because she did not have a visa, Beatrice was
billed around £6,000 the day after her baby was born, a sum that is totally
unaffordable for her. In the months after the birth, she was harassed by calls
from debt collectors.</p>
<p>“It’s
just me alone with my child. And they’re telling me you have to pay, when my
child was four months. I almost went
mad. I almost went crazy”, Beatrice said. “When they were calling me and saying I have to pay, I have to do
this, there was a point I felt like just dying.”</p>
<p>Beatrice had several common but potentially dangerous medical
conditions during the pregnancy. However, she told campaign group Maternity Action
that if she had known about the charges, she would have avoided going to
hospital and tried to give birth at home.</p><p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/megaphone photo (1).jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/megaphone photo (1).jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="613" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Image: Feminist Fightback</span></span></span></p><p>Rosa Campbell, another Feminist Fightback member, said, “We
changed the banner because we do not uncritically celebrate Millicent Fawcett.
Fawcett, like other suffragettes, was complicit in racism and imperialism.
Fawcett was outraged that Maori women in New Zealand got the vote before
British women. Ensuring everyone has access to the care they need, irrespective
of immigration status, is a critical issue for feminists. We believe we must
move forward with a feminism that challenges oppression and fights genuinely
for justice for all.”</p>
<p><strong>Get involved:</strong></p>
<p>Come to a <a href="http://www.feministfightback.org.uk/events/category/organising-meeting/" target="_blank">Feminist Fightback meeting</a> and be part of the
campaign to end the charges. The meetings are open to all women, including intersex, trans
and cis women, and to people of diverse gender identities in need of feminist
solidarity.</p>
<p>Get involved with <a href="http://www.docsnotcops.co.uk/" target="_blank">Docs Not Cops</a>.</p>
<p>Use the <a href="http://patientsnotpassports.co.uk/" target="_blank">Patients not Passports
toolkit</a> to find out how
you can start a campaign where you are or how you can take action if you’re a
healthcare worker.</p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/erin-dexter/making-nhs-hostile-environment-for-migrants-demeans-our-country">Making the NHS a “hostile environment” for migrants demeans our country</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/ed-jones/upfront-nhs-charges-one-year-on-6-reasons-why-they-harm-us-all">Upfront NHS charges one year on - 6 reasons why they harm us all</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/rayah-feldman/pregnant-women-bear-brunt-of-government-s-clampdown-on-migrant-nhs-care">Pregnant women bear brunt of government’s clampdown on ‘migrant’ NHS care</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/ex-boss-of-england-s-nhs-blasts-nhs-migrant-policy-as-national-scandal">Ex-boss of England’s NHS blasts NHS migrant policy as a “national scandal”</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSukourNHSFeminist FightbackWed, 07 Nov 2018 11:37:02 +0000Feminist Fightback120486 at https://www.opendemocracy.netUpfront NHS charges one year on - 6 reasons why they harm us allhttps://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/ed-jones/upfront-nhs-charges-one-year-on-6-reasons-why-they-harm-us-all
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>And what can we do to stop these harmful charges?</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/hostile4.JPG" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/hostile4.JPG" alt="" title="" width="460" height="388" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Image: Poster in Guys & St Thomas's Hospital. Credit: Docs not Cops</span></span></span></p><p>When you’re
expecting a baby the last thing you want to be thinking about is whether you
can afford <a href="https://www.maternityaction.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/WhatPriceSafeMotherhoodFINAL.pdf">over £6,000</a> to go into hospital for the labour. For most people in England
this isn’t yet a consideration but for the past year it has been the reality for
many migrant women.</p>
<p>A year ago
today, the government introduced upfront <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/nhs-visitor-and-migrant-cost-recovery-programme">NHS</a> <a href="http://sci-hub.tw/https:/doi.org/10.12968/hmed.2018.79.6.C94"></a><a href="http://sci-hub.tw/https:/doi.org/10.12968/hmed.2018.79.6.C94">charges</a> for <a href="https://www.doctorsoftheworld.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=2841d219-9ff0-40cf-9cf6-9eefd32d042c">certain migrants</a> as part of its '<a href="https://corporatewatch.org/the-hostile-environment-turning-the-uk-into-a-nation-of-border-cops-2/">hostile environment</a>'. Before that bills were sent after people received medical care.
Primary care (i.e. GP visits), visits to accident and emergency, and treatment
for some infectious diseases remains free for all. However, <a href="https://www.doctorsoftheworld.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=2841d219-9ff0-40cf-9cf6-9eefd32d042c">secondary care</a> (such as being on a ward in the hospital or X-Rays), <a href="http://sci-hub.tw/https:/doi.org/10.12968/hmed.2018.79.6.C94">community care</a> (including midwifery and abortion services), and care deemed
‘non-urgent’ is now liable for upfront costs for many migrants.</p>
<p>I’ve seen
it for myself when I volunteered with <a href="https://www.doctorsoftheworld.org.uk/">Doctors of the World</a>, supporting migrants to access healthcare in the UK. One patient
we saw had a stroke, and was admitted to hospital unconscious. They were not
charged for their time in A&amp;E, however they were charged over £40,000 for
their time in the Intensive Care Unit (secondary care). The Doctors of the
World clinics in London <a href="https://www.doctorsoftheworld.org.uk/news/nhshospitalswithholdingnonurgentcare">see many cases</a> where lifesaving care – including cancer chemotherapy, surgery
and palliative care – is withheld unless paid for upfront because it is
classified as ‘non-urgent.’</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/windrush-scandal">Windrush scandal</a> has shown how ‘hostile environment’ policies – which are also <a href="https://corporatewatch.org/the-hostile-environment-turning-the-uk-into-a-nation-of-border-cops-2/">present in housing, banking, employment</a> and other areas – can devastate people’s lives. </p>
<p>Evidence is
mounting that turning medical professionals into border guards is a bad idea.
Here’s why - and what we can do about it.</p>
<h2>1) Lives
are at risk</h2>
<p>Volunteers at Doctors of the World
have seen many people deterred from going to the doctor because they are
worried they can’t afford the charges or that they will be reported to – and
deported by – the Home Office. People's health conditions
often get worse as a result, <a href="https://www.doctorsoftheworld.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=2a7fc733-ceef-4417-9783-d69b016ff74f">as research</a> by Doctors of the World has shown.</p>
<p>Women have
not been accessing antenatal, perinatal and postnatal care because they are scared of mounting up debts or being reported to the authorities, a
recent Maternity Action <a href="https://www.maternityaction.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/WhatPriceSafeMotherhoodFINAL.pdf">report</a> found.
This means unborn babies and mothers are <a href="http://b.3cdn.net/droftheworld/5a507ef4b2316bbb07_5nm6bkfx7.pdf">more at risk</a> of poor outcomes, including death, low birth weight and the
transmission of various diseases. <a href="https://b.3cdn.net/droftheworld/5a507ef4b2316bbb07_5nm6bkfx7.pdf">Doctors of the World’s</a> research at their London drop-in clinic reached similar
conclusions.</p>
<p>Under
current regulations, if people incur healthcare debts over £500 they can be
reported to the Home Office after only two months of non-payment. Maternity
Action found that women – many of whom had just given birth – were being sent
threatening NHS bills and some had been chased by debt collection agencies.
They also spoke to women who had been wrongly charged for their care.</p>
<p>We are in
the middle of the <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/figures-at-a-glance.html">biggest refugee crisis</a> since the Second World War, partly fuelled by British foreign
policy and arms sales. Do we really want the government to respond by
preventing access to medical treatment to those in need, including pregnant
women?</p>
<h2>2) <strong>It is a </strong><a href="https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/38/2/384/1753511"><strong>public health risk</strong></a></h2>
<p>NHS charges deter and delay
vulnerable migrants from seeking the healthcare that they need, increasing harm
to the individual and putting the health of the public at risk, as research
conducted by post-graduate students at Kings College London at a Doctors of the
World clinic <a href="https://www.doctorsoftheworld.org.uk/news/new-research-shows-nhs-charging-is-pushing-sick-and-pregnant-migrants-away">has confirmed</a>.</p><p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/hostile3.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/hostile3.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="393" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Image: On display in Ashford & St Peter's Hospital Trust. Credit: Docs not Cops</span></span></span></p><p>If people
don't go to the doctor when they need to it will increase the spread of
infectious diseases, including <a href="http://www.who.int/tb/areas-of-work/drug-resistant-tb/en/">drug resistant</a> strains of tuberculosis (TB). Although treatment for many
infectious diseases do not incur charges under <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/nhs-visitor-and-migrant-cost-recovery-programme">the current</a> <a href="http://sci-hub.tw/https:/doi.org/10.12968/hmed.2018.79.6.C94"></a><a href="http://sci-hub.tw/https:/doi.org/10.12968/hmed.2018.79.6.C94">system</a>, many <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jessica_Potter/publication/326155664_Tuberculosis_looking_beyond_%27migrant%27_as_a_category_to_understand_experience/links/5b3b70a2aca2720785062bac/Tuberculosis-looking-beyond-migrant-as-a-category-to-understand-experience.pdf">migrants do not know</a> that this is the case. Research in the <a href="http://sci-hub.tw/https:/academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/doi/10.1093/eurpub/cky048.146/4973469">European Journal of Public Health</a> looking at 100 recent migrants diagnosed with tuberculosis, found
that at least 69% of them did not know that TB treatment was free prior to
their diagnosis. Another recent study in <a href="https://thorax.bmj.com/content/72/Suppl_3/A20.1">the journal Thorax</a> looking over 2,000 tuberculosis cases showed a significant
association between the roll out of NHS charging and worsening delays in
diagnosis amongst the non-UK born population.</p>
<h2>3) It’s
a false economy and will likely cost the NHS more money than it saves. </h2>
<p>The Department of Health previously
estimated that it was unclear whether the NHS charging system generated a <a href="https://fullfact.org/sites/fullfact.org/files/782677R%20Chap%202%20of%20Review%20pages%2055-89.pdf#page=31">net benefit or a net loss</a> in an Internal Review of the Overseas Visitor Charging System.
This is in large part due to the administrative cost of charging people and
running an overseas charging team. Quantifying the cost of healthcare visits
requires a vast amount of administration time, taking doctors and nurses away
from providing care. It requires a huge investment in time providing training
in costing, determining who is eligible or not, then ongoing time allowed to
cost medical interventions. This needs to be supported by administration,
managerial and accountancy staff to process bills and chase payments. Billing
equipment is also needed as well as training, engineering and IT support to
maintain the above.</p>
<p>When people
don't go to the doctor early on, many health conditions can also become much <a href="http://www.rcgp.org.uk/about-us/news/2017/september/investing-in-primary-care-is-cost-effective-for-the-nhs-and-good-for-patient-care-says-college.aspx">more difficult and costly to treat</a>, especially if they worsen, become chronic and/or spread if
infectious, resulting in more people turning up to A&amp;E. <a href="http://www.rcgp.org.uk/news/2017/september/investing-in-primary-care-is-cost-effective-for-the-nhs-and-good-for-patient-care-says-college.aspx">For example,</a> high blood pressure can be relatively cheap to treat and manage
early on, but if left unchecked it places patients at risk of a number of
conditions including cardiovascular disease. Untreated high blood pressure may
end up in A&amp;E with a heart attack and require much costlier interventions –
such as heart bypass surgery – with all the associated costs of stays in
hospital.</p>
<p>Health
tourism is currently a very small percentage of NHS costs – the upper end of
the government’s rough estimates are <a href="https://fullfact.org/health/health-tourism-whats-cost/">around 0.3%</a>. The cost of what little ‘health tourism’ that exists, including
treatment for <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/251909/Quantitative_Assessment_of_Visitor_and_Migrant_Use_of_the_NHS_in_England_-_Exploring_the_Data_-_FULL_REPORT.pdf#page=74">British 'expats'</a>, would be covered <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/paradise-papers">thousands of times over</a> if tax avoidance loopholes were closed. Everyone living in and
visiting the UK also pays some tax – it is almost impossible to avoid taxes
such as VAT. Bearing this in mind it just doesn’t make sense to suffer all
these problems to attempt to recover a small portion of the NHS budget. </p>
<h2>4) Upfront
charges undermine the universality of the healthcare system and expand the
infrastructure to further privatise the NHS. </h2>
<p>Depending on how you measure it,
around 8% of the NHS services have already been <a href="https://fullfact.org/health/how-much-more-nhs-spending-private-providers/">outsourced to private providers</a>, although privatisation is much more extensive if you include the
<a href="http://www.patients4nhs.org.uk/marketisation-of-the-nhs/">internal market</a>, <a href="https://fullfact.org/health/what-nhs-paying-private-finance-initiatives/">private finance initiatives</a>, and withdrawal and restriction of services. What, or who, will
be next? Introducing upfront charges for migrants has made it potentially much
easier to do the same for other groups of patients and normalises the concept
of upfront charging.</p><p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/hostile1.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/hostile1.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="345" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Image: On display in St Georges University Hospitals. Credit: Docs not Cops.</span></span></span></p><h2>5) It
sets a terrible international example
</h2>
<p>The system potentially will reduce
access to healthcare for UK citizens when they travel abroad. Until recently,
we had one of the most inclusive healthcare systems, so why change it? The US
demonstrates how large private medical bills deter the poor, vulnerable and
people of colour from accessing healthcare. This is a large part of why so many
women die <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-42031800/why-do-so-many-us-women-die-giving-birth">during childbirth in the US</a>.</p><p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/hostile2.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/hostile2.jpg" alt="" title="" width="399" height="339" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Image: On display in Whittington Hospital. Credit: Docs not Cops.</span></span></span></p><p>When <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan">Aneurin Bevan</a> – a former miner and Trade Union activist – led the creation of
the NHS as Health Minister after the Second World War, he <a href="https://www.sochealth.co.uk/national-health-service/the-sma-and-the-foundation-of-the-national-health-service-dr-leslie-hilliard-1980/aneurin-bevan-and-the-foundation-of-the-nhs/in-place-of-fear-a-free-health-service-1952/">intentionally ensured</a> that the healthcare system was universal for all, including
visitors to the UK. He wanted to set a positive example, in part to ensure
British people are treated when abroad, but also as a positive example of what
can be done internationally.</p>
<h2>6) It
is a racist policy. </h2>
<p>This policy denies basic human
rights to healthcare and asks healthcare workers and receptionists to determine
whether someone can access healthcare – which is not the job they have trained
for and distracts from what should be their priority: the <a href="https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/good-medical-practice">care of the patient</a>. Indeed, many NHS professionals are confused on how the new rules
should be applied, with some <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/23/rules-allowing-upfront-charges-for-foreign-users-of-nhs-come-into-force">incorrectly thinking</a> that some patients are ineligible for life-saving medical care.</p>
<p>‘Hostile environment’ policies can also target people with names that
don’t sound ‘British’, as well as people of colour. If people can’t prove their
status they may fall foul of the system. On top of that, <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160107124139/http:/www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_310441.pdf">17% of UK residents</a> don’t have a passport at all, according to the
2011 census. This has implications for some of the UK’s most vulnerable
citizens, including the homeless and those living in poverty.</p>
<h2>What can we do?</h2>
<p>There have
been some significant wins for the growing campaign against the ‘hostile
environment’ in healthcare. In May 2018 the government <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/peter-pannier/data-sharing-u-turn-is-welcome-but-more-to-do-to-scrap-hostile-environment-in-n">reversed</a> arrangements
to share patient details with the Home Office. The government has also <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/windrush-scandal">significantly backtracked</a> over the Windrush scandal. Change can happen - here are some ways
you can help:</p>
<p>1) Today -
23rd October 2018 - there is a day of action focusing on supporting healthcare
workers that are resisting ID checks and upfront charging in Barts Health NHS
Trust in London - the<a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/154192525531454/"> Facebook event
page</a> has the
timetable. There will be pickets at 3 Barts hospitals in the morning, a<a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23PatientsNotPassports&amp;src=typd"> #PatientsNotPassports</a> selfie twitter storm between 12 and 2pm aimed at Barts Trust, and
a rally at the Royal London Hospital in the evening from 6PM. Join online or in
person!</p>
<p>2) Sign <a href="https://pledgeforthenhs.com/">the pledge</a> to stop NHS charges.</p>
<p>3) Get
involved with <a href="http://www.docsnotcops.co.uk/">Docs Not Cops</a> (<a href="https://www.facebook.com/docsnotcops/">Facebook</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/docsnotcops?lang=en">@DocsNotCops</a>) or the <a href="https://www.medact.org/project/rsg/">Medact refugee solidarity
group</a> (<a href="https://www.facebook.com/MedactRefugeeSolidarityGroup/">Facebook</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/Medact">@Medact</a>) who are both fighting to stop the targeting of migrants in
healthcare. They are open to everyone, not just doctors and other medical
professionals.</p>
<p>4) <a href="https://www.doctorsoftheworld.org.uk/volunteer-roles">Volunteer with</a> or <a href="https://donate.doctorsoftheworld.org.uk/page/14476/data/1">donate</a> to Doctors
of the World to help ensure migrants access healthcare in the UK. You don't
have to be a medical professional to volunteer – you can do clinic support,
case work or other tasks. GPs, nurses and medical students are also needed.</p>
<p>5) If you
work in healthcare, do not ask to see ID, or turn a blind eye when you can. See
who will co-operate with you in your workplace. Please bear in mind this will
work better in some places than others. This is partly because patients could
be identified to be charged at a later time than admission, or at a later
admission, and will then still be eligible for the full cost of the care. See
the <a href="http://www.patientsnotpassports.co.uk">Patients Not Passports toolkit</a> which has a step-by-step advocacy guide to help healthcare
workers find a way to exempt patients, gives detailed signposting advice, and
also provides support to start campaigns. </p>
<p>6) If you
are a member of the public, if you can, do not comply with requests to show
forms of identity like passports and driving licenses when accessing NHS care.
Support those targeted when you witness racial discrimination and report it to
Docs Not Cops or Doctors of the World.</p>
<p>7) If you
work in healthcare join a union <a href="http://sci-hub.tw/https:/doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k471">like Doctors in Unite</a> which vows to support NHS staff who refuse to act as ‘border
guards’ and opposes the ‘hostile environment’ in healthcare. Alternatively get
your current union to vow to provide such support as well as campaign on this.</p>
<h2>Further reading</h2><p><a href="http://sci-hub.tw/https:/doi.org/10.12968/hmed.2018.79.6.C94">Understanding changes to NHS charging regulations for
patients from overseas</a> by Dr Lisa Murphy, Dr Joanna Dobbin, Dr Sarah Boutros in the British Journal of Hospital Medicine.</p><p><a href="http://patientsnotpassports.co.uk/">Patients Not Passports</a> - A toolkit designed to support you in advocating for people facing charges for NHS care, and in taking action to end immigration checks and upfront charging in the NHS. By Docs Not Cops, Medact and Migrants Organise.</p><p><a href="https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/sites/default/files/HE%20web.pdf">A GUIDE TO THE HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT: The border controls dividing our communities – and how we can bring them down</a> by Liberty (editor).</p><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/who-has-to-pay-for-the-nhs-and-when-91344">Who has to pay for the NHS and when?</a> By Jessica Potter in The Conversation.</p><p><a href="https://www.doctorsoftheworld.org.uk/publications">Publications by Doctors of the World</a> - includes policy briefings, evidence submissions and research
reports.</p><p><a href="https://corporatewatch.org/the-hostile-environment-turning-the-uk-into-a-nation-of-border-cops-2/">The Hostile Environment: turning the UK into a nation of
border cops</a> by
Corporate Watch.</p><p><a href="https://www.maternityaction.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/WhatPriceSafeMotherhoodFINAL.pdf">What Price Safe Motherhood? Charging for NHS Maternity
Care in England and its Impact on Migrant Women</a> by Maternity Action.</p><p><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327252907_Patients_Not_Passports-No_borders_in_the_NHS">Patients Not Passports – No borders in the NHS</a>! by Jessica Potter in collaboration with Docs Not Cops.</p><p><a href="http://raceequalityfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/REF-Better-Health-443.pdf">Tuberculosis: looking beyond ‘migrant’ as a category to
understand experience</a> by Jessica
L Potter &amp; Adrienne Milner, Race Equality Foundation Briefing Paper.</p><p><a href="http://sci-hub.tw/https:/academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/doi/10.1093/eurpub/cky048.146/4973469">Did migrants with tuberculosis in the UK know their
condition was exempt from charges?</a> by J Potter, V White, D Swinglehurst, C Griffiths in the European
journal of Public Health.</p><p><a href="http://sci-hub.tw/https:/doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4713">Upfront charging of overseas visitors using the NHS</a> by Lucinda Hiam and Martin McKee, in the BMJ.</p><p><a href="http://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/S1470-2045%2818%2930152-9">The NHS and migrant patients with cancer</a> by Sophie Williams, Erin Dexter, Jessica L Potter, in the Lancet.</p><p><a href="http://sci-hub.tw/https:/doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdy050">Implications of upfront charging for NHS care: a threat
to health and human rights</a> by James
Smith and Erin Dexter, in the Journal of Public Health.</p><p><a href="http://sci-hub.tw/https:/doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4091">Tougher charging regime for “overseas” patients</a> by Sarah Steele et al., in the BMJ.</p><p><a href="https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2017/11/10/roghieh-dehghan-a-migrant-gp-on-upfront-nhs-charges/">Roghieh Dehghan: A migrant GP on upfront NHS charges</a>, in BMJ Opinion.</p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/whole-agitation-has-nasty-taste-bevan-on-so-called-health-tourism">&quot;The whole agitation has a nasty taste&quot; - Nye Bevan on so-called &#039;health tourism&#039;</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/rayah-feldman/pregnant-women-bear-brunt-of-government-s-clampdown-on-migrant-nhs-care">Pregnant women bear brunt of government’s clampdown on ‘migrant’ NHS care</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/ex-boss-of-england-s-nhs-blasts-nhs-migrant-policy-as-national-scandal">Ex-boss of England’s NHS blasts NHS migrant policy as a “national scandal”</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/erin-dexter/making-nhs-hostile-environment-for-migrants-demeans-our-country">Making the NHS a “hostile environment” for migrants demeans our country</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSukourNHSEd JonesMon, 22 Oct 2018 23:01:00 +0000Ed Jones120232 at https://www.opendemocracy.netWe need to raise ‘wealth taxes’ to fund the NHShttps://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/rob-palmer/we-need-to-raise-wealth-taxes-to-fund-nhs
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>How will the Chancellor find the £20bn a year Theresa May has promised for England's NHS?&nbsp;</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="Normal1"><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/may hammond.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/may hammond.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="383" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'></span></span><em>Image: The PM and Chancellor at the Royal Free Hospital in June, where May pledged £20bn extra to the NHS. Credit: Stefan Rousseau/PA Images, all rights reserved.</em></p>
<p class="Normal1">At the Conservative party conference in Birmingham last week Theresa May
danced onto the stage and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/03/theresa-may-conference-speech-ambasts-labour-as-she-calls-for-tory-unity">declared
that austerity was over</a>. This was just the latest sign of a growing
agreement in British politics that public services are under strain and need an
injection of cash. </p>
<p class="Normal1">An area of particular cross-party consensus is that the NHS should have
more money. A vast majority of the public agree, and the government has
<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44495598">promised an extra £20 billion a year by 2023</a>. Both the Prime Minister and the
Chancellor have said that at least some of this will come from “fair and
balanced” tax rises, to be announced at the Budget at the end of this month. </p>
<p class="Normal1">The question now is which
taxes might rise, and by how much.</p>
<p class="Normal1">At <a href="http://www.taxjustice.uk/">Tax
Justice UK</a> we believe that if the government is going to increase
taxes, those with the broadest shoulders should pay the most. Our new report, <em>“The World We Want: The role of taxes in
funding the NHS and other public services”</em>, sets out one way the government
could find the promised £20 billion. </p>
<p class="Normal1">We followed four guiding principles for any tax changes: companies and
the wealthiest should pay their fair share to ensure trust in the system; tax
should increase in proportion to a person’s wealth and income; a sustainable
tax system needs to look beyond increasing taxes on just those at the top and
companies; and the poorest should be protected from tax rises.</p>
<p class="Normal1">Taxing wealth better is at the heart of our proposal. In the UK, <a href="https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk">wealth is spread
deeply unevenly,</a> with knock on effects on people’s life chances.
Those with the least suffer the most, with insecure work and skyrocketing
housing costs. This is made worse by a growing generational gap: young adults
today are unlikely to be as well off as their parents. </p>
<p class="Normal1">Importantly, there is political support for raising taxes on wealth
across the political spectrum, including from <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6132531/PETER-OBORNE-Welby-right-help-poor-tax-grab-fills-fear.html">Peter
Oborne</a>, Lord Willetts, Rachel Reeves and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/12/wealth-inequality-liberal-democrats-economic-reform">Vince
Cable</a>. And doing so would pay multiple dividends: not just helping
to find the extra money the NHS needs, but redressing imbalances in our society
that were part of the reason people voted for Brexit and that continue to
foment unrest. </p>
<p class="Normal1">A first step would be to <strong>cancel
the plans to cut corporation tax </strong>from the current rate of 19% to 17%, which
even many business groups don’t support. Corporation tax is an indirect way of
taxing wealth, as share ownership and pension holdings are concentrated amongst
the rich. A rate of at least 20% would bring in an extra £8.4bn a year, and
would have a <a href="https://home.kpmg.com/uk/en/home/media/press-releas-%20es/2016/11/cutting-the-corporate-tax-rate-is-unlikely-to-be-enough-to-encou.html">much
less dramatic impact</a> on inward investment than some claim. </p>
<p class="Normal1">The government should also fix council tax, which is a mess. Wealth in
Britain is primarily made up of pensions and property, both of which attract
significant tax breaks. Due to huge changes in property prices over the last three decades, the
amount people pay is only weakly connected to the value of their property. </p>
<p class="Normal1">A proposal from
the <a href="https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/press-releases/britains-increasingly-unevenly-shared-property-wealth-is-driving-up-inequality-after-a-decade-long-fall/">Resolution
Foundation</a>, which would
replace the current system with a <strong>tax
levied in proportion to a property’s value</strong>, would leave nearly
three-quarters of people better off while raising an extra £5 billion. This
money should stay with local authorities to help plug the holes in their
budgets, including for adult social care. </p>
<p class="Normal1">Other
recommendations in our report include: <strong>abolishing
entrepreneurs’ relief</strong>, which would raise £2.7bn; <strong>taxing income from wealth at the same level as income from work</strong>,
which could raise £4bn; <strong>applying
National Insurance to earnings of those older than the state pension age</strong>,
which would raise £1.3bn; and <strong>curbing
the pension subsidy to the wealthy</strong>, which would raise £2bn. </p>
<p class="Normal1">In total, we’ve
identified a possible £23.4bn in savings from these progressive tax reforms,
and believe more could be unlocked if the same guiding principles were
followed. </p>
<p class="Normal1">For too long in
the UK we have been living in a fantasy world whereby we can have low taxes –
our corporation tax rate is the lowest in the G7 – and very high-quality public
services. Mrs May’s conference speech was tantamount to an agreement that this
position is neither sustainable nor in the country’s best interests. </p>
<p>The promised increase in funding for the NHS should be a starting point
for a broader debate about the level of public services we want and how to pay
for them. Tax Justice UK’s vision is of a society where people do not have to wait months for
desperately needed operations, schools have enough resources to teach children
properly, people have access to affordable housing, and elderly and vulnerable
citizens are properly cared for. </p>
<p>Achieving this will mean taxing many of us
more, and taxing the wealthiest the most. It will mean taking on powerful
vested interests and rebuilding a sense of unity and solidarity in an
increasingly divided country. And it needs to start now. </p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/caroline-molloy/nhs-tax-is-stale-regressive-and-technocratic-perfect-for-new-centrist-party">An &#039;NHS tax&#039; is perfect for a &#039;new centrist party&#039;—stale, regressive and technocratic</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/jenny-shepherd/us-inspired-reorganisation-is-about-to-hit-nhs-help-fund-legal-challenge">A US-inspired reorganisation is about to hit England&#039;s NHS – &#039;help us stop it&#039; </a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/laurie-laybourn-langton/nhs-proves-there-s-always-been-alternative">The NHS proves there’s always been an alternative</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSukourNHSRob PalmerFri, 12 Oct 2018 06:51:05 +0000Rob Palmer120060 at https://www.opendemocracy.netA US-inspired reorganisation is about to hit England's NHS – 'help us stop it' https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/jenny-shepherd/us-inspired-reorganisation-is-about-to-hit-nhs-help-fund-legal-challenge
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>NHS plans due to take effect next spring could make general healthcare as difficult to access as mental healthcare already is – and lock future governments into long contracts with private firms, warn campaigners.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/Marching to Leeds High Court2.JPG" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/Marching to Leeds High Court2.JPG" alt="" title="" width="460" height="307" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'></span></span><em>Image: Campaigners march to court. Rights: 999 Call for the NHS</em></p><p>Members of the public,
NHS campaign groups and trade unions are acting to stop NHS England from
introducing a cost-cutting Accountable Care Organisation contract that will make
it harder to get the healthcare we are entitled to. In
their hundreds, they are <a href="http://bit.ly/999CourtofAppeal">donating
to help crowdfund a legal challenge</a> to this contract in the Court of Appeal
later this autumn.</p>
<p>This legal challenge -
brought by national campaign group 999 Call for the NHS and internationally
recognised public law firm Leigh Day - is the only way of stopping the contract.</p>
<p>NHS England has recently rebranded
the “Accountable Care Organisation contract as the “Integrated Care Provider”
contract, to avoid the USA connotations of the term Accountable Care
Organisation - the type of healthcare provider used by Medicare/Medicaid, which
provides a limited range of healthcare for Americans who are too poor or ill to
get private health insurance.</p>
<p>If this contract goes
ahead, Clinical Commissioning Groups will be using it to procure a whole range
of NHS services from April 2019.</p>
<p>The Integrated Care
Provider contract is not fully finalised, NHS England admitted in a recent
consultation, making a mockery of the consultation itself. The contract does
not even mention arrangements for integrating public health and social care
with NHS services, though this is supposedly the public rationale for the
change. </p>
<p>999 Call for the NHS say
that even if they agreed with the initial premise of contracting - which they
don’t - they can’t see that this contract is fit for the provision of social
care and public health services.</p>
<p>Why is NHS England in
such a rush that it is prepared to expose Clinical Commissioning Groups to the
risks associated with procuring huge, complex 10 year contracts for a whole
range of NHS, social care and public health services from a new untried form of
healthcare provider, on the basis of an unfinished contract? </p>
<p>Perhaps most worryingly
of all, this contract would subject a whole range of NHS services to the same
kind of cuts and pressures as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/21/nhs-beds-number-mental-health-patients-falls">acute
mental health services</a>.&nbsp;It’s designed to “manage demand” for a whole range of NHS services in a given area - in the same
way as mental health services contracts already operate.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Currently, in most NHS
contracts apart from mental health, a set payment is made for each treatment
provided to individual patients. But the new ICP contract would pay the
provider a fixed lump sum at the start of each year, to cover the costs of a
range of treatments for the whole population.</p>
<p>The result of this
payment arrangement for mental health services is that it is now normal for
there to be NO hospital beds for acute mental health patients in their own
area. They are routinely taken by ambulance across the country to wherever
there’s a hospital bed. And at times, it seems that have been <a href="http://www.nhsconfed.org/~/media/Confederation/Files/Publications/Documents/Is%20mental%20health%20crisis%20care%20in%20crisis%20MHN%20Briefing%20290.pdf%20%5d">NO
acute mental health beds free anywhere in the country</a>, according to Mental
Health Network members.</p>
<p>This 10 year contract
would lock in that payment arrangement for a whole range of NHS services.&nbsp;</p>
<p>It would set in concrete
new “care models” that are based on the USA’s Medicare/Medicaid system that only
provides limited health care for people who can’t afford private health
insurance.</p>
<p>A new government would be
powerless to stop and reverse this because the contracts would lock it in for a
continuous period of 10 years..</p>
<p>Local NHS campaigns
together with national 999 Call for the NHS are joining the dots between the
cuts that they're fighting in their areas and the contract that 999 Call for
the NHS are challenging in the Court of Appeal.&nbsp;</p>
<p>This Court of Appeal
hearing is NHS campaigners' best shot at stopping the contract that could set
all these cuts - and worse - in stone for 10 years, imposing the same
"demand management" payment arrangement that has been used to
decimate acute mental health services.</p>
<p>Jo Land, one of the Darlo
Mums who organised the 999 Call for the NHS Jarrow to London March for the NHS
in 2014, said:&nbsp;</p>
<p>“The Accountable Care
Organisation contract might seem like a dry legal issue that’s hard to get
bothered about. The reality is anything but. This is about whether patients can
continue to access the treatments they need, or whether the doctor-patient
relationship will be undermined by making doctors put financial considerations
ahead of patients’ clinical needs.”</p>
<p>The campaign group point
out that the payment arrangement in the Accountable Care
Organisation/Integrated Care Provider contract would allow for price
competition between providers when bidding for the contract. They argue this is
contrary to Parliament’s express intentions, in passing NHS and social care
legislation in 2012.</p>
<p>In dismissing the 999
Call for the NHS Judicial Review earlier this year, the court ruled that this
argument was a political issue - not a matter for the court.</p>
<p>But the Court of Appeal
has allowed an appeal on all seven grounds the campaign group’s legal team
applied for - and has speeded up the process because the NHS is important to
the public.</p>
<p>Steve Carne, a 999 Call
for the NHS campaigner said:&nbsp;</p>
<p>“Call it what you like -
Accountable Care Organisation or Integrated Care Provider - we can’t see that
this new way of paying NHS providers is lawful. And if it’s introduced, it will
restrict access to NHS treatments and accelerate the creation of a two tier
health system. People with money will pay to go private while the rest of us
make do with a limited NHS that operates like a health insurance company -
putting financial considerations first.”</p>
<p>If you would like to help
999 Call for the NHS to bring their challenge to the Integrated Care Provider
contract in the Court of Appeal this autumn, <a href="http://bit.ly/999CourtofAppeal">here’s where you can donate</a>.</p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/stewart-player/accountable-care-american-import-thats-last-thing-englands-nhs-needs">&#039;Accountable Care&#039; - the American import that&#039;s the last thing England&#039;s NHS needs</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSukourNHSJenny ShepherdMon, 08 Oct 2018 13:35:05 +0000Jenny Shepherd119964 at https://www.opendemocracy.netWhat would a society designed for well-being look like?https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/tabita-green/what-would-society-designed-for-well-being-look-like
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>Economic justice goes a long way to improving
mental health up and down the socioeconomic ladder.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/LydiaSmith4_0.jpg" alt="" width="460" /></p><p class="image-caption">Credit:&nbsp;<a href="https://pixabay.com/en/despair-alone-being-alone-archetype-513529/">Pixabay/Geralt</a>.&nbsp;<a href="https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en">CC0 Public Domain</a>.</p>
<p>In early June of this
year, the back-to-back suicides of celebrities Anthony Bourdain and Kate Spade,
coupled with&nbsp;<a href="https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/53785">a new report revealing a more than 25 percent rise in
U.S. suicides&nbsp;</a>since 2000, prompted—again—a national discussion
on suicide prevention, depression, and the need for improved treatment. Some
have called for the development of new antidepressants, noting the lack of efficacy
in current medical therapies. But developing better drugs buys into the
mainstream notion that the collection of human experiences called “mental
illness” is primarily physiological in nature, caused by a “broken” brain.</p>
<p>This notion is
misguided and distracting at best, deadly at worst. Research has shown that, to
the contrary, economic inequality could be a significant contributor to mental
illness. Greater disparities in wealth and income are associated with increased
status anxiety and stress at all levels of the socioeconomic ladder. In the
United States, poverty has a negative impact on children’s development and can
contribute to social, emotional, and cognitive impairment. A society designed
to meet everyone’s needs could help prevent many of these problems before they
start.</p>
<p>To address the
dramatic increase in mental and emotional distress in the U.S., we must move
beyond a focus on the individual and think of well-being as a social issue.
Both the World Health Organization and the United Nations have made statements
in the past decade that mental health is a social indicator, requiring “<a href="http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/100821/E92227.pdf">social, as well as individual, solutions</a>.”
Indeed, WHO Europe stated in 2009 that “[a] focus on social justice may provide
an important corrective to what has been seen as a growing overemphasis on
individual pathology.” </p>
<p>The UN’s independent
adviser&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21689">Dainius Pūras reported in 2017&nbsp;</a>that
“mental health policies and services are in crisis—not a crisis of chemical
imbalances, but of power imbalances,” and that decision-making is controlled by
“biomedical gatekeepers,” whose outdated methods “perpetuate stigma and
discrimination.” Our economic system is a fundamental aspect of our social
environment, and the side effects of neoliberal capitalism are contributing to
mass malaise.</p>
<p>In&nbsp;<em>The Spirit
Level</em>, epidemiologists Kate Pickett and Richard G. Wilkinson show a close
correlation between income inequality and rates of mental illness in 12
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member countries. The
more unequal the country, the higher the prevalence of mental illness. Of the
12 countries measured on the book’s mental illness scatter chart, the United
States sits alone in the top right corner—the most unequal and the most
mentally ill.</p>
<p>The seminal&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/acestudy/about.html">Adverse Childhood Experiences Study&nbsp;</a>revealed
that repeated childhood trauma results in both physical and mental negative
health outcomes in adulthood. Economic hardship is the most common form of
childhood trauma in the U.S.—one of the richest countries in the world. And the
likelihood of experiencing other forms of childhood trauma—such as living
through divorce, death of a parent or guardian, a parent or guardian in prison,
various forms of violence, and living with anyone abusing alcohol or drugs—also
increases with poverty.</p>
<p>Clearly, many of those
suffering mental and emotional distress are actually having a rational response
to a sick society and an unjust economy. This revelation doesn’t reduce the
suffering, but it completely changes the paradigm of mental health and how we
choose to move forward to optimize human well-being. </p>
<p>Instead of focusing
only on piecemeal solutions for various forms of social ills, we must consider
that the real and lasting solution is a new economy designed for all people,
not only for the ruling corporate elite. This new economy must be based on
principles and strategies that contribute to human well-being, such as
family-friendly policies, meaningful and democratic work, and community
wealth-building activities to minimize the widening income gap and reduce
poverty.</p><p><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/Tabitagreen2.jpg" alt="" width="460" /></p>
<p>The seeds of human
well-being are sown during pregnancy and the early years of childhood.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3640562/">Research shows that mothers&nbsp;</a>who are able
to stay home longer (at least six months) with their infants are less likely to
experience depressive symptoms, which contributes to greater familial
well-being. Yet in the United States, one-quarter of new mothers return to work
within two weeks of giving birth, and only 13 percent of workers have access to
paid leave. A new economy would recognize and value the care of children in the
same way it values other work, provide options for flexible and part-time work,
and, thus, enable parents to spend formative time with their young
children—resulting in optimized well-being for the whole family.</p>
<p>In his book&nbsp;<em>Lost
Connections,&nbsp;</em>journalist Johann Hari lifts up meaningful work and
worker cooperatives as an “unexpected solution” to depression. “We spend most
of our waking time working—and 87 percent of us feel either disengaged or
enraged by our jobs,” Hari writes.</p>
<p>A lack of control in
the workplace is particularly detrimental to workers’ well-being, which is a
direct result of our hierarchical, military-influenced way of working in most
organizations. Worker cooperatives, a building block of the solidarity economy,
extend democracy to the workplace, providing employee ownership and control.
When workers participate in the mission and governance of their workplace, it
creates meaning, which contributes to greater well-being. While more research
is needed, Hari writes, “it seems fair ... to assume that a spread of
cooperatives would have an antidepressant effect.”</p>
<p>Worker cooperatives
also contribute to minimizing income inequality through low employee income
ratios and wealth-building through ownership—and can provide a way out of
poverty for workers from marginalized groups. In an&nbsp;<a href="https://soundcloud.com/upstreampodcast/jessica-gordon-nembhard">Upstream podcast interview</a>, activist scholar
Jessica Gordon Nembhard says, “We have a racialized capitalist system that
believes that only a certain group and number of people should get ahead and
that nobody else deserves to … I got excited about co-ops because I saw [them]
as a place to start for people who are left behind.” </p>
<p>A concrete example of
this is the Cleveland Model, in which a city’s anchor institutions, such as
hospitals and universities, commit to purchasing goods and services from local,
large-scale worker cooperatives, thus building community wealth and reducing
poverty.</p>
<p>The worker cooperative
is one of several ways to democratize wealth and create economic justice. The
Democracy Collaborative lists dozens of strategies and models to bring wealth back
to the people on the website community-wealth.org. The list includes municipal
enterprise, community land trusts, reclaiming the commons, impact investing,
and local food systems. All these pieces of the new economy puzzle play a role
in contributing to economic justice, which is inextricably intertwined with
mental and emotional well-being.</p>
<p>In&nbsp;<em>Lost
Connections,</em>&nbsp;Hari writes to his suffering teenage self: “You aren’t a
machine with broken parts. You are an animal whose needs are not being met.”
Mental and emotional distress are the canaries in the coal mine, where the coal
mine is our corporate capitalist society. Perhaps if enough people recognize
the clear connection between mental and emotional well-being and our
socioeconomic environment, we can create a sense of urgency to move beyond
corporate capitalism—toward a new economy designed to optimize human well-being
and planetary health.</p>
<p>Our lives literally
depend on it.</p>
<p class="image-caption">This article was first
published in <a href="https://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/mental-health/what-a-society-design-for-well-being-looks-like-20180912?utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=YTW_20180914&amp;utm_content=YTW_20180914+CID_3a58e48b2a7b6e0ca7425d920c5743f5&amp;utm_source=CM&amp;utm_term=What%20a%20Society%20D">YES!
Magazine</a>.</p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/transformation/ray-filar/mental-health-why-were-all-sick-under-neoliberalism">Mental health: why we&#039;re all sick under neoliberalism </a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/transformation/lydia-smith/why-mental-health-is-hidden-cost-of-housing-crisis">Why mental health is the hidden cost of the housing crisis</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/transformation/joel-millward-hopkins/neoliberal-psychology">Neoliberal psychology</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
TransformationourNHSTransformationTabita GreenThe politics of mental healthCareThu, 04 Oct 2018 15:00:36 +0000Tabita Green119712 at https://www.opendemocracy.net"Not on the NHS" – from grommets to hysterectomies – unless you act nowhttps://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/greg-dropkin-samantha-wathen/not-on-nhs-from-varicose-vein-treatments-to-hysterectomies-unles
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>The government plans to exclude 17 important medical treatments from the NHS across the whole of England, with more restrictions in the pipeline. A consultation on the proposals is open until this Friday.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/childs ear.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/childs ear.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="307" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'></span></span><em>Image: Grommets for glue ear are one of the procedures being largely cut from the NHS. Credit: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/tbisaacs/3911558890">Travis Isaacs/Flickr,</a> CC 2.0</em></p><p>At the end of June
NHS England <a href="https://www.healthcampaignstogether.com/pdf/HCTNo11.pdf">formally
announced its plan to withdraw 17 clinical procedures</a> meaning they would no
longer be routinely offered on the NHS. This move means treatments such as knee
arthroscopies for patients with osteoarthritis, and snoring surgery, will no
longer be available to anyone on the NHS. And procedures such as varicose vein
removal, grommets for glue ear in children, hysterectomy for heavy menstrual
bleeding, tonsillectomies, and treatments to release carpal tunnel syndrome or
to remove benign skin lesions, will no longer be available to anyone on the NHS,
unless complex criteria are met.</p>
<p>This is clearly a
further step towards introducing a two-tier system with the better off being
able to pay for non-NHS treatment, the poorer suffering in silence and private
companies making a profit. NHSE is implementing what is arguably a prime
example of this government’s long-term agenda – to severely restrict public
health care and to promote private health care, and here it is in full flow.</p>
<p>However, treatments cannot simply be withdrawn without <a href="https://www.england.nhs.uk/evidence-based-interventions/">consultation</a>.
Keep Our NHS Public asks clinicians and
the public to complete the online survey (which closes this Friday 28 September)
– <a href="https://keepournhspublic.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Responding-to-NHSE-Consultation-on-low-value-interventions.pdf">guidance
from Keep Our NHS Public is here.</a> </p>
<p>We need to reject
unjustified rationing plans which will force patients to either suffer or seek
private treatment, the thin end of the wedge for further cuts to come.</p>
<p>In their 103 page public
consultation, NHS England gives the impression that the proposals are fully in
line with NICE, whose logo appears on the cover, and that NICE was a source for
the proposals. </p>
<p>But in fact, NHS England’s proposals to withdraw 17 NHS clinical
procedures <em>contradict</em> existing
guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the recognised authority advising
clinicians on the current state of research evidence. </p>
<p>Research undertaken
by Keep Our NHS Public paints a very different and alarming picture. It details
that for nine of the 17 procedures,
NHSE does not cite any evidence at all from NICE. For five procedures the NICE evidence cited
does not support the NHSE proposal and for one, the NICE evidence cited gives only partial support. For only two out of seventeen withdrawn
procedures does the cited NICE evidence back the NHSE proposal. The government
have not listened to clinicians, campaigners or crucially, to NICE in rationing
these arguably essential treatments. </p>
<p>Keep Our NHS Public supports evidence-based
policy, and where clinical evidence backs it up procedures in certain
circumstances may not always be appropriate (e.g. tonsils used to be removed in
over 50% of children). But the good practice guidance already exists and NHSE
is now seeking to artificially extend it. Grommets for instance may have been
overused in the past, but they are subject to guidance now and are still necessary
in some cases.</p>
<p>Some NICE guidance (not
cited by NHS England) directly contradicts proposals and/or refers to relevant
ongoing research. In one case (intervention for snoring surgery), NHS England is bypassing unfinished NICE research
which isn’t due to be finished and published until August 2020. It appears that
NHSE is ‘cherry-picking’ the evidence available to suit its own ends.</p>
<p>Clinicians should
read NICE guidance for themselves rather than take NHS England’s word for it.</p>
<h2>Ignoring clinicians, listening to McKinsey</h2>
<p>NHS England also make explicit that they intend to “rapidly expand” the
restrictions after this consultation. Already, many more so-called “clinically
ineffective” treatments are restricted in areas across the country – in Bristol,
104 interventions are being excluded. The threat is explicit that NHS England
is looking to replicate this nationally as the government potentially seeks to
withdraw ever more NHS provision.</p>
<p>In attempting to
ration NHS treatments, NHS England and the government presuppose they know
better than qualified and skilled clinicians. It should not be the decision of
ministers in Whitehall who can and cannot access much needed medical treatment.
Indeed, this decision making should never be taken on the basis of cost as is
happening here. The approach appears to derive from a 2009 report by the McKinsey
Corporation on how the NHS could respond to the banking crisis, that included hip and knee replacements, hernia and
cataract surgery in a list of <a href="https://www.healthcampaignstogether.com/pdf/HCTNo11.pdf">“procedures of
limited clinical benefit”.</a></p>
<p>NICE guidelines are
being ignored when the health and wellbeing of real patients is at stake. Existing
NICE and other clinical guidelines are already cautious, conservative, thorough
and periodically under clinical review. Clinical practice should change in
response to proven research following systematic review, not pre-empt it. NHSE
is bypassing unfinished research cited in NICE guidance. Clinicians should take
decisions in discussion with patients without bureaucratic referral-blocking
processes when guidance exists and is in practice already.</p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/caroline-molloy/nhs-cuts-are-we-in-it-together">NHS cuts - are we in it together?</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/caroline-molloy/eight-reasons-you-really-can%27t-trust-tories-with-nhs">Eight reasons you really can&#039;t trust the Tories with the NHS</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/paul-hobday/seven-things-private-healthcare-insurance-adverts-wont-tell-you">Seven things the private healthcare insurance adverts won&#039;t tell you</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSukourNHSSamantha WathenGreg DropkinTue, 25 Sep 2018 15:36:15 +0000Greg Dropkin and Samantha Wathen119815 at https://www.opendemocracy.netNHS bosses call "pause" on controversial "SubCo" NHS privatisations - for nowhttps://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/colenzo-j/strikes-planned-against-backdoor-nhs-privatisation-fools-gold
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>NHS workers and communities are uniting to fight back against the dangerous creation of NHS ‘wholly owned subsidiaries.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/unite WWL.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/unite WWL.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="384" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'></span></span></p><p><em>Image: Pickets at WWL NHS this summer, where backdoor privatisation plans were halted. Credit: @Unite_NorthWest.</em></p><p><em>UPDATE 18.15pm 19/9/18: Just as this story was published, <a href="https://www.hsj.co.uk/policy-and-regulation/nhsi-tells-trusts-to-pause-subsidiary-plans/7023407.article?utm_source=t.co&amp;utm_medium=Social&amp;utm_campaign=newsfeed">the main NHS regulator announced it was calling for a 'pause' on all new NHS Wholly Owned Subsidiary plans</a>, pending the issuing of new guidance next month. Unite's Colenzo Jarrett-Thorpe commented: <span>“Unite the Union welcomes NHS Improvement's call to a halt the establishment of more Wholly Owned Subsidiaries. We hope that this instruction extends to NHS Foundation Trusts that plan to transfer staff into these companies in the next couple of weeks, such as East Kent and York, and others with board approval like Chesterfield. We hope NHS Improvement consults as many NHS stakeholders as possible including community groups, patient groups and trade unions regarding the future of wholly owned subsidiaries.&nbsp; We will be writing to the Chief Executive of NHS Improvement to express our concerns.”</span></em></p><p>NHS trusts in
England are setting up wholly owned subsidiaries (WOSs) in a bid to avoid tax. And
the dangers inherent in are becoming increasingly apparent in terms of threats
to patient services and jobs.</p>
<p>Worryingly there
are about 40 of these entities announced or already up-and-running in England’s
NHS – for estates staff (from management to electricians) as well as porters,
cleaners and other key support staff. Many out-patient pharmacies in hospitals
have gone the same way.&nbsp;</p>
<p>But there are
signs the tide is finally turning. <a href="https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/nhs-trust-scraps-plans-outsource-15149720">Tees
Esk and Wear Valley NHS Trust has just announced it has ditched its plans to
create a wholly owned subsidiary</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>This follows NHS
trusts -&nbsp;<a href="https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/article/unite-celebrates-nhs-trust-victory">Leicester</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/health/trust-u-turn-is-victory-for-principles-of-nhs-1-9300508">Mid
York</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/unions-hope-to-defeat-hospital-staff-transfers-as-leeds-nhs-trust-puts-private-company-move-on-hold-1-9265997">Leeds</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/southmead-hospital-bosses-scrap-proposal-1157104">North
Bristol</a>&nbsp;- where trust managements have retreated from
proposals to create these private limited companies.</p>
<p>In each case,
local campaigns brought together staff and the community. Their rallying cry?
That the NHS means an NHS for <em>all</em> - and
calling out wholly owned subsidiaries for what they are, backdoor NHS
privatisation masquerading as an exercise in financial efficiency.</p>
<p>Unite is
concerned that the trusts are forming these entities so that they can register
for VAT exemption and compete on a level-playing field with commercial
competitors. Private firms can register for VAT exemption for their work in the
NHS, when NHS trusts can’t.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Unite, which has
100,000 members in the health service, wants HMRC to close this loophole, but
the request has so far been rebuffed by the Treasury.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>This summer, the
Department of Health and Social Care took steps to ensure that if an NHS trust
or foundation trust wants to set up a wholly owned subsidiary they will have to
get approval from the Department of Health via NHS Improvement (NHSi), and
report their interest in setting up the company to NHSi.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The main purpose
of this is to ensure that an NHS trust does not place itself at financial risk by
setting up a wholly owned subsidiary. Unite welcomes this statement, but
believes the government should go further.</p>
<p>Unite wrote
earlier this year to the former health and social care secretary Jeremy Hunt
calling for an immediate moratorium on further private limited companies being
established by NHS trusts in England.&nbsp;</p>
<p>At the time, Hunt
failed to address these concerns – we hope for a more positive response from
his successor, Matt Hancock.&nbsp;</p>
<p>We believe WOSs
could be creating a Pandora’s Box of dozens of Carillion-type meltdowns among
NHS trusts in England, which would have a detrimental effect on key health services
and the employees that provide these services.</p>
<p>Unite members in
East Kent (<a href="//2">24-28 September</a>)
and York (<a href="//3">27-29 September</a>)
will be taking industrial action, as a last resort in their campaign to stop
their outsourcing to a private limited company, a WOS. Our members want to defend
their NHS status, and to halt
privatisation of vital NHS services.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>They will be building
on the efforts of workers at Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation
Trust, where outsourcing to a wholly owned subsidiary culminated in strike
action in July. This action ended in success when a solution was found and
staff were not transferred to the WOS. Again, protests involving the local
council, MPs and the community contributed to this heartening victory.</p>
<p>Electricians,
plumbers, fitters, porters and cleaners carry out a crucial role in keeping
hospitals open and properly functioning. They are a core part of the NHS’
family’ and their jobs should not be hived off.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Unite is not
prepared to allow the jobs of our members to be sold off, which would
inevitably lead to job cuts and attacks on the terms and conditions further
down the line. And it would be fool’s gold anyway, if the HMRC eventually
closes the tax loophole.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Though NHS
Providers promote the creation of WOSs, they are not the answer to the last
eight years of chronic underfunding of the NHS and the parlous finances of many
NHS trusts in England.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>There is strong
evidence where wholly owned subsidiaries have been set up that once staff are
transferred to the private limited company, new employees are not given access
to the NHS pension scheme and are offered inferior Agenda for Change terms and
conditions.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>This is where
these companies seek to make savings, by short changing hard working staff under
the rubric of becoming more ‘commercial’ and ‘sustainable’&nbsp;(NHS companies
– An enterprising approach to health, Grant Thornton, 2017).</p>
<p>Our members in East
Kent and York hospitals are at the forefront of a much wider policy struggle
over the future direction of the NHS and the disaster of the 2012 Health and
Social Care Act which has created a privatised, fragmented health system even health
leaders don’t understand and cannot navigate.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Unite says we
must call time on wholly owned subsidiaries specifically and NHS privatisation
generally. The NHS means the NHS.&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/caroline-molloy/are-cash-strapped-hospitals-walking-into-trap-that-could-cost-nhs-its-family-">Are cash-strapped hospitals walking into a trap that could cost the NHS its family silver?</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSukourNHSColenzo Jarrett-ThorpeWed, 19 Sep 2018 15:20:16 +0000Colenzo Jarrett-Thorpe119728 at https://www.opendemocracy.netWhat happens when mental health professionals also get sick?https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/lydia-smith/what-happens-when-mental-health-professionals-also-get-sick
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p class="normal">It’s
no wonder that almost half of all psychotherapists in the National Health
Service say they feel depressed.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="normal"><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/LydiaSmith4.jpg" alt="" width="460" /></p><p class="image-caption">Credit:
<a href="https://pixabay.com/en/despair-alone-being-alone-archetype-513529/">Pixabay/Geralt</a>. <a href="https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/deed.en">CC0 Public Domain</a>.</p>
<p class="normal">Overwhelmed by soaring demand,
mental health services are under growing pressure on both sides of the
Atlantic. According to a <a href="https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/publications/surviving-or-thriving-state-uks-mental-health">2017 Mental Health Foundation survey</a> two-thirds of British adults experience mental ill-health
issues at some point in their lives. In England alone, <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/mental-health-and-wellbeing-trends-among-children-and-young-people-in-the-uk-19952014-analysis-of-repeated-crosssectional-national-health-surveys/AB71DE760C0027EDC5F5CF0AF507FD1B">such issues in young people have risen sixfold since 1995</a>. US figures paint a similar
picture: <a href="https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ps.201600260">a study published in Psychiatry Online in 2017</a> found that more than eight million Americans suffer from
serious psychological distress.</p>
<p class="normal">But this
crisis isn’t just affecting the general public; an increasing number of mental
health professionals are also struggling with their wellbeing. In a recent <a href="https://www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/new-savoy-survey-shows-increasing-mental-health-problems-nhs-psychotherapists">survey</a> undertaken by
the New Savoy Partnership—a coalition
of organisations that came together in 2007 to persuade government to recognise
the value of providing psychological therapies free of charge—almost
half of 1,227 NHS psychotherapists said that they had felt depressed in the last week “some, most or all of the
time,” up from 40 per cent in 2014.</p>
<p class="normal">In already highly-pressured
environments like the NHS, increasing demands on staff, tight time limits and
the prominence of targets mean that many nurses and specialists are suffering from the same mental health problems they
are treating in their patients. This isn’t just a problem for professionals who
lack access to the appropriate support; keeping staff healthy is also crucial
for patients, communities and our collective wellbeing.</p>
<p class="normal">“High caseloads, lots of
clients back to back—the work of a therapist is tough emotionally and takes a
lot of energy out of you,” counsellor and psychotherapist Katerina Georgiou
told me in a recent interview. “It’s also a very responsible role—you’ve got vulnerable
people placing their trust in you, and that’s a responsibility you can’t take
lightly. You need to care about people and fully attend to them. You’re
switched on throughout a session. If you’ve then got five or six sessions back
to back, that’s a lot of time switched on,” adding that burnout can be common.</p>
<p class="normal">At a time when the demand for
mental health services is rising, funding cuts and austerity measures have
caused essential resources to dwindle, staff workloads to mount, pay stagnate
and morale crumble. According to <a href="https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/parity-of-esteem">The Centre for Mental Health</a>, mental illness accounts for 28 per cent of the overall
disease burden of the NHS but receives just 13 per cent of total funding.&nbsp; Between 2009 and 2017, the King’s Fund think
tank reported a <a href="https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/funding-staffing-mental-health-providers">13 per cent drop in full-time NHS mental health nurses</a>.</p>
<p class="normal">“Mental health professionals
will feel the cuts in the sense of noticing increased caseloads, perhaps not
having much time in between clients, not as much time to write up notes, and
the demand for outcomes increased,” Georgiou says. “The breathing space
decreases, which can increase stress, maybe even build resentment. And the
thing is, you can’t let that stress and resentment get in the way of your
work.”</p>
<p class="normal">Health staff are being asked
to see huge numbers of patients for shorter periods of time, and their managers
are under pressure to prioritise targets—like treating minimum numbers
of clients—over their wellbeing. As a result,
sickness rates among staff have become a common concern, with stress and
anxiety-issues <a href="https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/funding-staffing-mental-health-providers">one of the most frequently stated causes of absence among
mental health </a><a href="https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/funding-staffing-mental-health-providers">nurses</a>.</p>
<p class="normal">“Working in an under-resourced, under-pressure NHS leaves
doctors struggling to provide the high-quality care patients deserve,” <a href="https://www.bma.org.uk/">British Medical
Association</a> Consultants’ Committee mental health lead Dr Andrew
Molodynski told me. “This leads to doctors burning out and becoming unwell, and
patients suffer further.”</p>
<p class="normal">Louise Watson, a UK-based
clinical psychologist, adds that professionals working privately may also face
“internal pressures,” perhaps seeing more clients in a day than may be healthy
because of the intense nature of the job. Moreover, mental health
professionals may struggle to come forward for help, or simply soldier on and
mask their problems. “I think another internal pressure is that perhaps mental
health professionals feel a level of demand that they shouldn’t be struggling
with mental health issues themselves,” Watson told me.</p>
<p class="normal">“Most people who are in the
profession are there because there is something in their personality or
background that means they are comfortable in that role of helping other
people, so to be on the other side of the fence is difficult. They may put off
going for help longer than they should because of that.”</p>
<p class="normal">Making sure that everyone who
needs help is able to access it is essential, not least because the number of
people in need of specialist care is growing, and staffing levels are already
in crisis. “It speaks for itself that if mental health professionals are off
work with stress, or aren’t functioning to their full capacity because they are
under too much pressure, then there won’t be anybody to look after anybody,”
Watson says. “It’s a bit like on an airplane and the oxygen masks drop down,
you need to fit your own oxygen mask first before you help others.”</p>
<p class="normal">Mental health services in the
US are also under threat. Earlier this year, President <a href="https://www.apnews.com/4db5c3de76d6440fbe35485af6cc0678/Budget-undercuts-Trump-focus-on-mental-health,-school-safety">&nbsp;Trump’s budget
proposed slashing Medicaid, the major source of public funds for mental health
treatment</a> which serves more than 70
million low-income and disabled people. America is also facing an acute
shortage of mental health professionals in rural areas, with 65 per cent of
non-metropolitan counties lacking a psychiatrist and nearly half without a
psychologist according to a recent study in the <a href="https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(18)30005-9/fulltext">American Journal of Preventive Medicine</a>.</p>
<p class="normal">It’s no surprise that a
shortage of staff and other resources have had a direct impact on access to
services, including longer waits for people in dire need of help, which can
lead to an <a href="https://www.bma.org.uk/news/2018/february/the-devastating-cost-of-treatment-delays">increased risk of self-harm and suicide.</a> In 2018, the US <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6722a1.htm?s_cid=mm6722a1_w">Centers for Disease Control</a> found that suicide rates have risen by 30 per cent in
America since 1999. An increasing number of teenagers in England and Wales are
also dying by suicide, <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/suicidesintheunitedkingdom/2017registrations">with 177 suicides among 15- to 19-year-olds in 2017</a> compared to 110 in 2010.</p>
<p class="normal">“There would be an argument to
say that we ought to be prioritising making sure people who are helping others
are healthy,” Watson told me. “If we don’t, there won’t be any mental health
care. And that will have knock on effects on society like having large numbers
of people off work with stress.”</p>
<p class="normal">It’s not just public health
that suffers if we fail to support mental health staff but the whole of society
and the economy. The UK government’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/thriving-at-work-a-review-of-mental-health-and-employers">Thriving at Work review</a> published in 2017 concluded that poor mental health costs the economy
up to £99 billion a year. Of this amount, employers lose up to £42 billion
through staff turnover, sick leave and ‘presenteeism’—working while
sick, which causes losses in productivity.</p>
<p class="normal">Importantly though, if a
mental health professional is experiencing a problem and seeks help, this can
be a positive thing for care all-round. “It increases your ability to empathise
with your own clients if you have been through a similar situation, and gives
you first-hand experience of seeing what you thought was helpful,” Watson
explained. “If you work in mental health and you suffer with an issue yourself,
maybe it ought to be seen as a helpful experience in terms of improving our own
practice.”</p>
<p class="normal">It also breaks down the ‘them
and us’ feeling that is common in the health system, Watson adds. “The client
may see the psychologist as a doctor who is there to fix them, but what I think
can be helpful in a therapeutic relationship is to feel a rapport—that we are
both human beings. It is about working together to find an answer.”</p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/transformation/lydia-smith/why-mental-health-is-hidden-cost-of-housing-crisis">Why mental health is the hidden cost of the housing crisis</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/transformation/lydia-smith/why-we-should-all-be-concerned-about-musicians-mental-health">Why we should all be concerned about musicians’ mental health</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/transformation/ray-filar/mental-health-why-were-all-sick-under-neoliberalism">Mental health: why we&#039;re all sick under neoliberalism </a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
TransformationourNHSTransformationLydia SmithThe politics of mental healthCareTue, 18 Sep 2018 19:09:08 +0000Lydia Smith119690 at https://www.opendemocracy.netNHS charging for overseas visitors – wrong on every level https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/martin-mckee/nhs-charging-for-overseas-visitors-in-nhs-wrong-on-every-level
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>Regulations that deny visitors NHS care –&nbsp;except for certain infectious diseases and to relieve death pains - are riven with contradictions. And will hit some unexpected victims as well as the intended scapegoats.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/nhs-poster-not-free-to-all.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/nhs-poster-not-free-to-all.jpg" alt="" title="" width="380" height="214" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'></span></span><em>Image: Poster in Newham hospital. Rights: <a href="https://newhamsaveournhs.weebly.com/">Newham Save Our NHS.</a></em></p>
<p>Given the choice, the British government’s <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/729872/Guidance_on_implementing_the_overseas_visitor_charging_regulations_-_May_2018.pdf">guidelines
on implementing their overseas visitor charging regulations</a> would
not have been top of my reading list. Especially because I had already read
them once – but still had to revisit them to formulate an answer to a question
on a list server. The question was, at least superficially, simple. The
regulations contain a list of diseases which -&nbsp; for any visitor to the United Kingdom unlucky enough to have one of them – the NHS will still provide free treatment. Is
this list appropriate? Is there anything that is missing? As is often the case,
an apparently simple question opens up many other less obvious issues. Here are
just a few of them.</p>
<p>The guidelines were written for health professionals and
managers who must decide whether a patient is entitled to free NHS care, in the light of recent regulations restricting access for visitors.</p><p>To make their decision, NHS staff are confronted with a set of guidelines that stretches to 117 pages, which they are expected to understand and apply, even in the midst of working frantically to save a patient’s life.</p><p>It gets worse. NHS organisations “are advised to seek their own legal advice on the extent of their obligations when necessary”. Why? Because the regulations are incredibly complex, and involve balancing requirements under a wide range of other legislation, including data protection, prohibition of discrimination, and much else. Also there are still unresolved ambiguities. As the guidelines note, “’Ordinarily resident’ is not defined in the 2006 Act”, even though it is a key concept in making decisions under the regulations.</p><p>NHS staff really don't need all of this. In a
health service that has been starved of resources for almost a decade, health
workers are already overstretched. Posts remain unfilled, and rotas have many
gaps. In some parts of the country, many of those providing direct patient care
are agency staff, who must spend precious time orientating themselves to
different settings. The rapidly changing nature of healthcare means that they
must constantly update their knowledge, both in relation to clinical matters
and to an often bewildering array of statutory requirements.&nbsp;</p><p class="mag-quote-center">“providing timely and effective care to migrants saves money in the long run”</p><p>Leaving aside the morality of the government’s “<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29306349">hostile environment</a>” to visitors, these regulations also completely fail to recognise that what is presented as a cost saving measure is anything but. For many hospitals, the cost of complying with the regulations far outweighs any income that they may generate. And&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26201017">research from Germany</a>&nbsp;shows clearly that providing timely and effective care to migrants saves money in the long run. But then, as is apparent with the government’s pursuit of Brexit, deterring migrants is much more important than growing the economy.</p>
<p>The politics behind the regulations are obvious. The main
exemption from charges is for infectious diseases deemed to pose a threat to
the resident population. Visitors will be entitled to care in an emergency
department, but only until the point where they require admission to hospital.
Palliative care is also exempt, presumably because of the media attention that
visitors dying in agony might attract.</p>
<p class="mag-quote-center">The list gives an impression of having been
drafted several decades ago</p>
<p>It is the list of infectious diseases that is most
intriguing. Some are highly contagious but others are not. Leprosy, for
example, is only transmitted when there is prolonged contact between people.
Others are included even though they are transmitted by vectors not normally present
in the United Kingdom. Yet other vector borne diseases (such as <a href="http://www.who.int/chagas/resources/Eurosurv_art19968/en/">Chagas Disease</a>,
increasingly being diagnosed among migrants from South America) are excluded.
Smallpox remains on the list, despite having been eradicated globally almost 40
years ago. The list gives an impression of having been drafted several decades
ago, with individual diseases being added on an ad hoc basis.</p>
<p>There will, however, be an opportunity to update the list.
The guidelines are full of references to the European Union and the European
Economic Area. Visitors from the countries concerned are, of course, entitled
to treatment paid for by their home health authorities. Should British
ministers ever manage to agree on a feasible plan to leave the European Union,
then this will have to change completely. However, given the many other
challenges that they will face, including shortages of staff, medicines,
equipment, and above all money, this may be well down the list of priorities.</p>
<p class="mag-quote-center">British pensioners who have retired to the
Mediterranean…will find, to their surprise, that they are not entitled to NHS
treatment under the regulations</p>
<p>So it may take some time for them to address one of the more
pressing issues. This is the potential return of large numbers of British
pensioners who have retired to the Mediterranean. Many of them will find, to
their surprise, that they are not entitled to NHS treatment under the
regulations as they are not ordinarily resident. Given that many are elderly,
with multiple chronic conditions, this will pose a considerable challenge. In
some cases, they will have family members who are not British citizens, just to
add to the complexity.</p>
<p>Postscript: As I was finalising this blog, the Home Office
issued its guidance on <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/04/concerns-raised-over-59-page-handbook-on-brexit-settled-status-scheme?CMP=share_btn_tw">applications
for settled status for EU citizens post-Brexit</a>. The good news – it
is only 59 pages long. Remember that the then Home Secretary said this would be
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/23/amber-rudd-online-eu-registration-system-lk-bennett">as
simple as opening an account at a certain upmarket retailer</a>. The bad news –
the guide to the process for such applicants is almost as incomprehensible as
the guidance for NHS staff outlined above. This time, the government claims the
default position will favour the applicant but, given this would be a 180
degree turn by the Home Office, and totally at odds with the culture of
xenophobia it has worked so hard to create, no-one believes it.</p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/ex-boss-of-england-s-nhs-blasts-nhs-migrant-policy-as-national-scandal">Ex-boss of England’s NHS blasts NHS migrant policy as a “national scandal”</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/erin-dexter/making-nhs-hostile-environment-for-migrants-demeans-our-country">Making the NHS a “hostile environment” for migrants demeans our country</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/caroline-molloy/dont-invoke-nhs-to-sell-false-idea-of-good-nationalism">Don&#039;t invoke the NHS to sell a false idea of &#039;good nationalism&#039;</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/kailash-chand/nhs-passport-proposals-are-just-more-grubby-politics-from-may-and-hunt">NHS passport proposals are just more grubby politics from May and Hunt</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/migrant-activists-disrupt-department-of-health">Migrant activists disrupt the Department of Health </a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/docs-not-cops/labour-must-tackle-may-s-hostile-environment-for-migrants-in-nhs">Labour must end May’s ‘hostile environment’ for migrants in the NHS</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSukourNHSMartin McKeeWed, 05 Sep 2018 08:55:52 +0000Martin McKee119545 at https://www.opendemocracy.netSocial activism and the economics of mental healthhttps://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/john-picton/social-activism-and-economics-of-mental-health
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>Apolitical volunteering is ill-equipped to
address the structural causes of depression.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/John Picton.jpg" alt="" width="460" /></p><p class="image-caption">“Volunteering.” Credit: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/danielthornton/8620041374">Flickr/Daniel
Thornton</a>. <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">CC BY 2.0</a>.</p>
<p>‘Social
prescribing,’ where patients with depression join in community activities as a
part of their treatment, is moving from the fringe of medical practice to the
mainstream. Matt Hancock, the new British Minister for Health and Social Care, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/social-prescribing-schemes-across-england-to-receive-45-million">has
pledged £4.5m to promote it</a>, but we should stop to think before we take this
medicine: linking patients to their communities is a positive step, but a better
move would be for people to get involved in social activism.</p>
<p>The Minister probably
has one eye on his budget, since social prescribing <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/social-prescribing-health-conditions_uk_5b586a95e4b0de86f4923524">is
thought to stop patients coming back to doctor’s surgeries</a>—so saving the
state money in the National Health Service (NHS). But this scheme, which
normally involves referring the patient to a link worker who then recommends different
types of community activity for them, is about more than balancing the books: in
fact the NHS is administering a large dose of social theory. </p>
<p>Almost 20 years
ago, the American Political Scientist <a href="http://robertdputnam.com/">Robert
Putnam</a> published <em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone">Bowling Alone</a></em>. Since
then there has been a groundswell of interest in its central concept of ‘social
capital’—the idea that community bonds such as those developed in bowling
leagues in the USA make both individuals and societies happier and healthier. </p>
<p>Putnam is a
nuanced writer, but the core focus of <em>Bowling
Alone</em> is on community participation not social activism. He wants to unify
us not cause political fights, and hopes to develop a country of association-joiners:
religious service attenders, sports club players, park gardeners, members of knitting
circles and school governors. In one interview <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/jul/18/communities.guardiansocietysupplement">he
analogises this to a honeycomb</a>, a social system of welcoming and interlocking
groups, each empowered as a part of a greater civic whole.</p>
<p>Charismatic, and
with the enigmatic appearance of a nineteenth century preacher, Putnam has
become an academic celebrity. His ideas on social capital have been met with
great enthusiasm by policy makers on both sides of the Atlantic. <a href="https://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/north-america/robert-putnam-celebrating-his-incredible-contribution-to-the-study-of-social-capital/">One
British policy group</a> working right at the heart of the Cabinet Office has
called him the most influential political scientist alive. Before his promotion,
Hancock held the British Government’s brief for civil society, and the
influence of <em>Bowling Alone</em> can be clearly
felt in his new policy on social prescribing. Linking individual depression to
a lack of community activity takes a leaf straight out of Putnam’s book. </p>
<p>At core the idea
is simple: integrating patients into their communities is thought to <a href="https://bmcfampract.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2296-9-27">develop
self-esteem</a> and social support, providing a holistic treatment instead of just
prescribing drugs. In turn, the community will also be improved. It would take
a hard heart to reject this idea completely; friends and community really are
an important element in our lives whether or not we have depression. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/EN-GB/For-professionals/Health-and-wellbeing/Social_Prescribing_Report.pdf?dtrk=true">One
report by the charity Age Concern</a> describes the case of a woman who, having
lost her husband to suicide, found solace in volunteering as a befriender and in
theatre outings. Another, trapped in a rural community without access to
transport, was encouraged to organise a local party. Social prescribing <a href="https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/social-prescribing">is also
deployed</a> in support of community gardening, sports and arts and crafts.
Although there <a href="https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/4/e013384">is little
hard evidence</a> to back this up, strengthening the community links of patients
seems likely to have a positive impact on their health.</p>
<p>But there is
something missing from this picture. Depression is intimately connected with economic
structures. Even when we are well paid we might still have a difficult boss.
Target-driven work culture <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(18)30176-7/fulltext">is
bad for us</a>, leading to intense and demanding jobs in environments over
which we have little control. When we are also short of money our situation
gets even worse; unemployment impacts negatively on health, and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001879109000037">the
effect is more pronounced</a> in countries with weak social security systems. Discrimination
<a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1471-6402.00090">impairs
our mental well-being</a>.</p>
<p>In their new
book <em><a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/kate-pickett-richard-wilkinson/enemy-between-us-how-inequality-erodes-our-mental-heal">The
Inner Level</a></em>, epidemiologists Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson make a
data-based case, not only that unequal societies are worse to live in but also
that inequality erodes trust and leads to anxiety, causing an arms race in
competitive consumption. This animus is good for no one; disparities in wealth
connect with the prevalence of mental illness, and so depression is linked to a
deep economic ordering which volunteering is ill-equipped to address. No bowling
league will work for a fairer society and no gardening club can keep your boss
off your back. </p>
<p>It’s not that
social capital theory is wrong, just incomplete: community networks are an
important, perhaps vital, element of our lives. But even combined with medication
they are not a truly holistic solution to depression. By emphasising community over
political action, social prescribing side-steps the economics of mental illness:
a focus on social capital shifts the frame away from the social effects of capitalism.
It is <em>economic </em>society that needs a
visit to the doctor. </p>
<p>Of course we
should not abandon hope in voluntary action. In its more radical guise as social
activism it focuses attention on the economic context of depression. In this
vein, a charity called <a href="https://www.time-to-change.org.uk/get-involved/activity/persuade-your-employer-sign-time-change-pledge">Time
to Change</a> encourages its members to meet with their bosses, requesting a
pledge to tackle mental health stigma in the workplace. Another charity, <a href="https://www.mind.org.uk/about-us/our-policy-work/benefits/">Mind</a>, works
to improve welfare benefits for mental health sufferers, encouraging its
members to lobby Parliament. In contrast to much community work, these
campaigns put politics at the centre.</p>
<p>In the period
since Putnam wrote <em>Bowling Alone</em>, it
has become obvious that society cannot realistically be theorised as a civic
whole of interlocking groups: there is no ‘honeycomb.’ News reports reflect a
world of irreconcilable conflict, from Brexit in the UK to the polarising
impact of President Trump in the USA. Yet the fact that we can no longer ignore
our divisions might lead us to mount a back-to-front argument <em>against</em> politicising volunteering in
this way: in a context of strife, non-political community work could be said to
provide a neutral space which opens up a civic domain in which we can come
together and leave politics at the door; a place where we might give it all a
rest and just concentrate on something fun like bowling.</p>
<p>There is some
mileage in this view. It’s true that not everyone wants to talk politics with
their neighbours, but all political silence has a cost. After two years of field
work, the American Sociologist <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/658024?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">Nina
Eliasoph concluded</a> that volunteers often work to keep their conversations neutral,
taking care not to sour the mood at meetings. Yet to disengage on social
questions is to accept a type of disempowerment, a self-removal from the scene.
For Eliasoph, social activists have something valuable that community workers
do not—a willingness to recognise complexity, challenge authority, and relate
deeply with each other. To confront political issues is only to recognise social
reality. </p>
<p>While a focus on
the economics of depression might push some right-leaning volunteers out of the
meeting room, single-issue activism can still be reasonably inclusive. In
contrast to party membership, which might require the broad embrace of a cluster
of divisive policies, social activism hones in on a cause. A single issue can
provide a point around which diverse people might coalesce, even when they
agree on little else. At best, activists enjoy the community advantages of a
cell in Putnam’s honeycomb. They can be tightly bound together as friends, but they
also have a critical awareness of cracks in the overall social and political structure.</p>
<p>Social activism
can mean leafletting, door knocking and collecting signatures, but it is not necessary
to get cold outside in order to change the world. Those that prefer the warm
might turn to art. <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3653925?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">William
Morris</a>, the Victorian socialist and designer thought that joy in creativity
was nature’s compensation for toil in labour. Depressed in office work, we
might still take pleasure in music, dance, film, photography, crafts or ‘<a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/kali-swenson/social-justice-with-knitting">craftivism</a>.’
It is even possible to politicise a knitting circle if activists put slogans onto
clothes, quilts and samplers, voicing the economics of depression in
cross-stitch. Or they might write and blog together, explaining the world in
order to change it. What matters is that we do all our work with an awareness
of society, politics and economics, combined with a willingness to change all
three.</p>
<p>The British
Minister for Health should be given credit for being innovative, but it is
unrealistic to expect him embrace or encourage social activism. No Minister
could prescribe social change on the National Health Service; part of the
attraction of Putnam’s theory is precisely its political safety. Policy-makers
are responsible for steadying the ship of state not rocking it. </p>
<p>When Brooks
Newmark, a former British Minister for Civil Society <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/03/charities-knitting-politics-brook-newmark">said
recently</a> that charities should “stick to their knitting,” he meant to imply
that they should keep out of political and economic issues. But that is the
voice of the <em>status quo</em>. In fact,
politics is precisely what volunteers should be doing—not least with their needlework.</p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/transformation/michael-edwards/when-is-civil-society-force-for-social-transformation">When is civil society a force for social transformation?</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/participation-now/hilde-c-stephansen-leah-lievrouw-nick-mahony/when-is-citizen-participation-transfo">When is citizen participation transformative? </a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/transformation/peroline-ainsworth-kiran-nihalani/five-ways-to-build-solidarity-across-our-difference">Five ways to build solidarity across our differences</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-topics">
<div class="field-label">Topics:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
Civil society </div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by NC 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
TransformationourNHSTransformationCivil societyJohn PictonThe politics of mental healthActivismTue, 21 Aug 2018 20:02:44 +0000John Picton119353 at https://www.opendemocracy.netThe NHS deal is not an acceptable settlementhttps://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/rachel-harrison/nhs-deal-is-not-acceptable-settlement
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>GMB, the only union to vote against the government's NHS pay deal, pledge to continue fighting it.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/565030/22241083476_458f212dda_z.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/565030/22241083476_458f212dda_z.jpg" alt="Junior doctors protest contract changes in 2015." title="" width="460" height="307" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Junior doctors protest contract changes in 2015. Image: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/rohinfrancis/22241083476/in/photostream/" target="_blank">Rohin Francis</a> (CC BY 2.0)
</span></span></span>Since our members overwhelmingly rejected Jeremy Hunt’s dodgy three year NHS pay deal earlier this year, we have been consulting them on the next steps.</p><p>During the past few weeks, members have used the <a href="https://opendemocracy.net/ournhs/caroline-molloy/nhs-staff-discover-they-will-get-hundreds-of-pounds-less-than-they-thought" target="_blank">ballot process to tell reps on the ground about their huge disappointment at this pay deal and how let down they feel by it</a>.</p><p>After nearly a decade of wage freezes and caps that have seen our dedicated NHS and ambulance workers’ pay pinched and left them thousands of pounds out of pocket, a below inflation wage increase for some of the longest-serving, most dedicated staff in the health service is not good enough. Our members deserve far more than a real terms pay cut.&nbsp;</p><p>We have said all along that we could not in good conscience recommend Jeremy Hunt’s offer to our members. And so we didn’t.&nbsp;</p><p>GMB was the only union of 14 health service representative bodies to have rejected Jeremy Hunt’s offer for what it was, and our ability to take industrial action this year alone has been limited accordingly. That, coupled with the government’s anti-trade union legislation which makes it extremely difficult to meet legal thresholds for a formal industrial action ballot, are why we are unable to trigger a formal industrial action vote over NHS pay this year.&nbsp;</p><p class="mag-quote-right">Our members deserve far more than a real terms pay cut&nbsp;</p><p>The message from GMB members has been loud and clear throughout our consultation – we must continue to campaign for more funding for NHS pay. This three year deal is not an acceptable settlement for us.</p><p>A joint meeting between GMB National NHS and Ambulance Service reps and officers has overwhelmingly agreed that although we are not in a position to ballot for industrial action, GMB's campaign does not stop here. As we have promised to members, GMB will continue to push the government into increasing funding into the NHS for pay. Anyone who thinks we will lie down and simply accept this pay deal for the next three years is very wrong. It’s not good enough – and this is not the end of the matter. The strength of feeling among GMB members is very clear on that.&nbsp;</p><p>We’re incredibly proud of our members for taking a stand – and grateful to the support and solidarity we have received from workers across the NHS and from the public at large who support our call for properly funded fair pay for the heroes working in our health service.&nbsp;</p><p>Under this government our NHS is under threat. For it to survive, we need to continue to fight for it and the people who keep it going every day. And GMB will.</p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/caroline-molloy/nhs-staff-discover-they-will-get-hundreds-of-pounds-less-than-they-thought">NHS staff discover they will get hundreds of pounds less than many thought</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/caroline-molloy/nhs-pay-deal-row-intensifies-as-nurses-call-for-union-leader-to-quit">NHS pay deal row intensifies as nurses call for union leader to quit</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by NC 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSourNHSRachel HarrisonMon, 13 Aug 2018 15:45:19 +0000Rachel Harrison119249 at https://www.opendemocracy.netNHS pay deal row intensifies as nurses call for union leader to quithttps://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/caroline-molloy/nhs-pay-deal-row-intensifies-as-nurses-call-for-union-leader-to-quit
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>Calls for resignations and for NHS pay vote to be rerun as Royal College of Nursing chief admits they gave incorrect pay deal information.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/pay deal story 2.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/pay deal story 2.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="307" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'></span></span><em>Image: Nurses pay protest 2017. Credit: Yui Mok/PA Images, all rights reserved</em></p><p>Furious members of the Royal College of Nursing last night <a href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScapLCouL3tNwINQU5MiaJsNatBlaZ39h6IgXP5fjFTBslNbg/viewform">launched a petition calling for the union’s leaders to stand down</a>
over their handling of communications about this year’s NHS pay deal in England.</p>
<p>OurNHS understands the petition is
well over halfway to the required number of signatures to trigger an emergency general
meeting, another of its demands. It was started after the head of the RCN,
Janet Davies, last night took the unprecedented step of writing to members to
apologise that they were given incorrect information about the pay deal that
they voted on in the spring. Ms Davies acknowledged that many have received
less than the RCN told them they would.</p>
<p>Her email comes after <a href="https://opendemocracy.net/ournhs/caroline-molloy/nhs-staff-discover-they-will-get-hundreds-of-pounds-less-than-they-thought">OurNHS
exposed last week</a> that many NHS staff felt disappointed and upset&nbsp;as it emerged that many would not
immediately get the full pay rise they were expecting.</p>
<p>The
email, seen by OurNHS, shows that their concerns were justified. In it, Ms
Davies says:</p>
<p>"I
wanted to write to you myself over the recent NHS pay deal.&nbsp;It has come to
my attention in the last 24 hours that the deal was not as straightforward as
we said and for that I offer you a sincere personal apology.</p>
<p>"I’m
as dismayed and angry as you are and will fight the corner of members at every
turn.&nbsp;In good faith, we told all members that they would receive a 3 per
cent uplift this summer. I now find that this is not the case for everyone.”</p>
<p>Ms
Davies went on, "I can assure you that I am demanding answers for you. In
the meantime, I can only apologise for this unnecessary confusion and assure
you that I am determined to resolve it.&nbsp;Your elected Council and Trade
Union Committee will be meeting in the next few days and I will update you on
next steps."</p>
<p>Along with the other main unions, apart
from the GMB, the RCN had recommended the pay deal to members.</p>
<h2>Anger from below</h2>
<p>Last night there was renewed fury
amongst RCN activists and members. Anthony Johnson, a health visitor, RCN
member and former ‘pay champion’ (members who help organise local action around
pay) told OurNHS that the RCN “shouldn’t have trusted the government… It seems
like they’ve just gone for the deal and been screwed over, but they’ve sold the
deal so it’s their fault”. </p>
<p>Asked about the assertion by some unions
that the deal was understood, Mr Johnson replied, “No way is that true that staff
understood. People were still passing around incorrect information right up till
the vote.” Many staff have been making similar comments both to OurNHS and on
social media in recent days, as payslips land on NHS staff doorsteps this week.</p>
<p>Mr Johnson’s views are echoed across
social media. Many NHS staff are furious with the government. Lauren Gavaghan,
a consultant psychiatrist,&nbsp;<span><a href="https://twitter.com/DancingTheMind/status/1019835168260001798" target="_blank">tweeted</a></span>&nbsp;that the debacle was “Jeremy
Hunt’s parting gift to NHS staff”. The anonymous @GPConsortia account <span><a href="https://twitter.com/gpconsortia/status/1019936011416162305" target="_blank">tweeted</a></span>&nbsp;merely, “Swine.” Retired doctor
Mark Cheeseman&nbsp;<span><a href="https://twitter.com/stilton54/status/1019674728968196097" target="_blank">tweeted</a></span>,<strong>&nbsp;“</strong>The NHS
worries why it’s losing so many staff. And then double-crosses the ones they
have got on a pay deal.”</p>
<p>Another NHS worker commented on
OurNHS’s original story<strong>, “</strong>I'm a band 6 nurse at spine point 27, with
incremental date of end of January. I cast my vote based on information given
to me from the pay calculator [from unison],&nbsp;which indicates that in year 1 my pay
would increase by £1,672. According to these newly released figures from [the
nhs employers site] above, my pay will actually increase by £491, and I will
have to wait until my next incremental date before I see the pay rise I voted
for. Since my pay was always going to increase on my next incremental date, I
feel that I was misled.”</p>
<p>Another commented, “I work with
highly intelligent, analytically astute people who are used to dealing with numbers
and figures on a daily basis... and they were inveigled by the purposely
Byzantine structure proposed.”</p>
<p>Gordon Marsden, a Labour MP and shadow
education minister,&nbsp;<span><a href="https://twitter.com/GordonMarsden/status/1022398603971776513" target="_blank">tweeted</a></span>&nbsp;in response to an openDemocracy
update last night, “Looks like Jeremy Hunt got out of [Department of] Health just in time
...another 'con' from a discredited 'Con' Govt They’ll sneak things out to
dodge scrutiny … &amp; now misrepresent underpar NHS rises.”</p>
<p>Many were angry with both the government
and the unions who recommended the deal. One NHS scientist&nbsp;<span><a href="https://twitter.com/wakeyrule/status/1022369064184889344" target="_blank">tweeted</a></span>, “The gasps of disbelief from NHS staff as they open
their pay packets is reverberating around the Trust where I work. Overwhelming
feeling is that the Unions have been hoodwinked by the Govt.”</p>
<p>A community health nurse&nbsp;<span><a href="https://twitter.com/IsiSiewruk/status/1022199715587399680" target="_blank">replied</a></span>&nbsp;to a tweet by the RCN that mentioned a 3% pay
rise, saying “That’s just not true though is it. It’s around 1.5
percent until increment date, so not 3% for the full year. The NHS Employer
tool also shows that will also happen in year 2 and 3 for me. Not how it was
sold to staff before the vote.”</p>
<p>An advanced nurse practitioner&nbsp;<span><a href="https://twitter.com/scarymonstertwo/status/1022164916432789504" target="_blank">tweeted</a></span>, “Rather than an
apology, how about a public denouncement of the deal, an apology and a
declaration to fight it and poll members for action?”</p>
<h2>Official responses</h2>
<p>Danny Mortimer, head of NHS
Employers, told OurNHS today that this was “an issue between the RCN and its
membership”. He said, “The letter states that the RCN has in error told members
in one of its documents that they would all receive ‘a 3 per cent uplift this summer’…
This miscommunication is very unfortunate and clearly the RCN will need to
review all of its communications to understand the extent of its error.” In response to a specific question NHS Employers
confirmed to OurNHS that <a href="https://twitter.com/TweetBails/status/1021707924404662272">a poster showing
the apparently higher pay figures</a>&nbsp;(ie, including a full year's increment for those staff not at the top of their bands) was put up on their website 21 March and taken down
on 13 June, and told us that “materials explaining are regularly updated in light of
feedback and questions".</p>
<p>An RCN spokesperson told OurNHS, “This
is not about reopening the deal. Despite some delays to payments, over the
three years the deal has to run, members will receive the full amount promised.
We are sorry for any confusion caused about what members were due to receive
this month.” </p>
<h2>Trouble for the Tories</h2>
<p>The pay offer came at a point when
the government was under considerable political pressure. After one of the
hardest winters in NHS history, union leaders were loudly pointing out that
eight years of zero or 1% pay rises (a real-terms cut of 14% after inflation)
was contributing to serious and worsening staff shortages.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/06/enough-is-enough-nurses-protest-against-pay-cap-outside-westminster" target="_blank">For months, nurses had been warning
the government</a>&nbsp;that unless pay was addressed properly they
would take historically unprecedented strike action.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nurses-vote-overwhelmingly-to-strike-for-first-time-ever-over-1-pay-rises-a7735451.html" target="_blank">Four out of five nurses&nbsp;were
prepared to strike</a>&nbsp;over pay, according to an initial RCN ballot
of its members during the 2017 election campaign. The government’s pay cap was
widely seen by commentators to have contributed to the Tories’ poor performance
in that election. Asked during the campaign why nurses were having to rely on
foodbanks, Theresa May told the BBC that there were “many complex reasons”—a
response for which she was widely criticised.</p>
<p>In March 2018 Jeremy Hunt, then
health secretary, tweeted that he was “Delighted to
confirm pay rise of between 6.5 and 29% for NHS staff who have worked so hard
over a tough Winter, in a £4.2bn deal.” Hunt told Parliament, “Rarely has a pay
rise been so well deserved for NHS staff, who have never worked harder.”</p>
<h2>Pensions problem</h2>
<p>In further developments, fresh
concerns have emerged about the impact of&nbsp;<span><a href="http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?m=1102665899193&amp;ca=e2244e75-6316-43e3-939c-7792b7a1680b" target="_blank">pensions</a></span>. The leaders of the GMB have
expressed disappointment at the actual increase, and both&nbsp;<span><a href="http://www.labournet.net/ukunion/1807/nhspay1.html" target="_blank">activists</a>&nbsp;in other unions</span> and the GMB leadership have reiterated their previous
concerns about the deal, including the impact of inflation and changes to&nbsp;payments
for unsocial hours. The GMB&nbsp;<span><a href="https://twitter.com/GMB_union/status/1022216933649907715" target="_blank">tweeted</a></span>&nbsp;yesterday, “We couldn’t recommend Jeremy
Hunt’s dodgy NHS pay offer to our members. And so we didn’t.”</p>
<p>OurNHS has also seen materials that
the RCN circulated to its reps and pay champions before the vote on the pay
deal, asking them to recommend the deal even if they didn’t fully understand
it. One leaflet for reps tells them to “encourage [members] to say yes to the
deal”. Another says, “We believe it’s the best deal we can expect in the
current climate of austerity and we’re now recommending members accept it. As a
pay champion, we expect you to spread the word about the deal.” Inside, the
FAQs include: “<strong>The pay deal looks complex, do I need to learn it all?</strong>&nbsp;The
short answer is no. We don’t expect you to advise members on the pay deal. You
should signpost them to&nbsp;<span><a href="http://www.rcn.org.uk/nursing-pay" target="_blank">www.rcn.org.uk/nursing-pay</a></span>&nbsp;and pay meetings where they can
ask questions.&nbsp;<strong>What if I don’t agree with the deal?&nbsp;</strong>… If you
strongly disagree with the deal we hope that you will still give out the
leaflets and put up the posters…you can also have your say when voting opens on
23 April.”</p>
<p>Some staff who did ask questions told
OurNHS they got short shrift. Mr Johnson says that when he raised questions
about aspects of the pay deal, including unsocial hours payments, he was told
“you don’t understand maths”.</p>
<p>NHS Employers told the Health
Services Journal last night they were “disappointed” at the RCN’s email to its
members yesterday, and “surprised as no concerns were raised with us”.</p>
<p>In a separate statement NHS Employers
focused on a separate issue, which is that whilst the pay deal will be applied
to this month’s pay packets, staff won’t get the backdated pay till August
rather than July.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>The RCN represents 435,000 members.</p>
<p>This week NHS doctors are also&nbsp;<span>up in arms about their own, separate pay
deal,</span>&nbsp;as
it emerged on the last day of Parliament that they, like other public-sector
workers including police officers, would this year receive a below-inflation rise
of 2%. This is less than the independent NHS Pay Review Body recommended, and
comes after doctors, like other NHS workers, have endured years of pay
austerity.</p>
<p>Calls for the vote to be re-run are
widespread,&nbsp;with prominent NHS
blogger Roy Lilley saying,<strong> “</strong>Tonight the
RCN have ‘apologised’ for ‘the dismay’ I think a re-ballot is called for.
Only&nbsp;<span><a href="https://twitter.com/GMB_union" target="_blank">@GMB_union</a></span> opposed the
award and they are right<strong>.”</strong></p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/caroline-molloy/nhs-staff-discover-they-will-get-hundreds-of-pounds-less-than-they-thought">NHS staff discover they will get hundreds of pounds less than many thought</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by NC 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSukourNHSCaroline MolloyThu, 26 Jul 2018 13:14:13 +0000Caroline Molloy119029 at https://www.opendemocracy.netNHS staff discover they will get hundreds of pounds less than many thoughthttps://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/caroline-molloy/nhs-staff-discover-they-will-get-hundreds-of-pounds-less-than-they-thought
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>Nearly a million NHS staff are due to receive a long-awaited pay rise at the end of this month. But new figures released quietly last week have caused fury—and confusion even amongst some unions.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/rcn protest.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/rcn protest.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="307" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'></span></span><em>Image: Nurses protest against the government's pay cap, September 2017. Credit: NurPhoto/SIPA/PA Images</em></p><p><em>BREAKING NEWS: UPDATE 20:15, 25th July 2018:<br /></em></p><p><em>The head of the Royal College of Nursing, Janet Davies, has today taken the unprecedented step of writing to members to apologise that staff were given incorrect information about their pay deal voted on in the Spring, and large numbers have received less than the RCN told them they would receive. The email (seen by OurNHS) confirms OurNHS's revelations last week. In it, Ms Davies says:<br /></em></p><p><em>"I wanted to write to you myself over the recent NHS pay deal.&nbsp;It has come to my attention in the last 24 hours that the deal was not as straightforward as we said and for that I offer you a sincere personal apology.<br /></em></p><p><em>"I’m as dismayed and angry as you are and will fight the corner of members at every turn.&nbsp;In good faith, we told all members that they would receive a 3 per cent uplift this summer. I now find that this is not the case for everyone.<br /></em></p><p><em>"I can assure you that I am demanding answers for you. In the meantime, I can only apologise for this unnecessary confusion and assure you that I am determined to resolve it.&nbsp;Your elected Council and Trade Union Committee will be meeting in the next few days and I will update you on next steps."<br /></em></p><p><em>OurNHS will cover this rapidly developing story as it unfolds tomorrow.</em></p><p><span>NHS staff vented fury yesterday as newly published figures suggested that they may have accepted a pay offer last month on the basis of information that did not mean what they thought it did.</span></p>
<p>The three-year deal – trumpeted by Jeremy Hunt as “an incredibly well deserved pay rise
for staff who have never worked harder” – came after years of pay freezes and
real-terms pay cuts. NHS staff were expecting a nice chunk of back pay for the
first year’s rise to be in their pay packets at the end of July (as they’ve
been paid at last year’s rate until everything was settled).</p>
<p>But many
NHS workers could be in for a nasty shock. <a href="http://www.nhsemployers.org/-/media/Employers/Documents/Pay-and-reward/NHS-TCS-2018-Pay-scales-poster-2018-19.pdf">NHS
Employers, the official body in charge of NHS staff, has just published the new
2018/9 pay rates</a> – and&nbsp;<span>to many NHS workers they do not appear to be</span>&nbsp;the same as the 2018/9 pay figures staff were
pointed to <em>before</em> they voted on the deal.&nbsp;<span>In fact, averaged across all</span><span> pay </span><span>bands and scale</span><span>
points</span><span>, they appear to award </span><span>initially </span><span>only</span><span> around half the pay </span><em><span>rise from April 2018 that
many staff may have been expecting</span></em><em><span>,</span></em><span> according to OurNHS’s calculations.</span></p>
<p><span>Nearly
a million staff are covered by the NHS pay deal, though not hospital doctors</span>. Unions thrashed out the deal
with the government in March, and balloted their members in the spring, with
most union leaderships (except the GMB) recommending support. There were
arguments about the headline figures, so most unions strongly advised their
members to check out what it meant for them on a ‘<a href="https://www.nhspay.org/pay-calculator/">pay calculator</a>’ before making up their minds. (Unison created its
<a href="https://www.unison.org.uk/nhs-pay-calculator">own calculator</a> which drew from and was identical to the NHS Pay
one).</p>
<p>For
example, Unison emailed members in April, saying, “It’s really important that
you understand what it would mean for you before you cast your vote. If you
haven’t already, you might find trying out our pay calculator useful – just
enter your pay point and your pay band to find out exactly how much your salary
would change.” </p>
<p>Similarly
Unite emailed members in March, linking to the calculator - <a href="http://www.nhspay.org/">www.nhspay.org/</a>.</p>
<p>However,
it now transpires that, when spinning the new deal, the NHS employers jumbled
up two different things in the pay calculators. One was the long-awaited (not
very big) cost of living increase across the NHS. The other,&nbsp;<span>Often
much larger&nbsp;</span>part of the pay rise people were told they would get turns out to be the normal
pay increase that most NHS employees receive every year anyway, in recognition
of their growing experience. This is known as their ‘increment’. </p>
<p><span>A bigger problem arises because the cost-of-living increase and the increment will be received on very different dates</span>. While many
staff thought that the whole new salary would be back-dated to the start of the
financial year in April, in fact, only the relatively small cost of living
increase will be. Their annual increment - usually the bigger part of the increase
- will only come in on the anniversary of when they started with the NHS: which
could be many months later. The result is that many staff will be earning
hundreds - or even thousands - of pounds less this year than they had
understood when they voted for the package.&nbsp;<span>The
issue potentially affects nearly half of NHS staff, though those on the top of
their pay bands are not affected as they were not due an increment anyway, and
those on the very lowest levels of pay (the 90,000 staff currently earning under
£17,460) are not affected as they will get the full pay rise with effect from 1
April, unlike other staff.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p>In fact,
it’s not just staff who are confused. I’ve asked NHS Employers and the unions
to explain the discrepancy, and have had totally conflicting answers.</p>
<p>Today, the
Royal College of Nursing press office told me that a typical nurse on point 20
in the middle of Band 5 (for example), previously earning £25,551 a year, would
receive the entire rise with effect from the 1st of April, saying “yes, that member of staff will earn
£26,963 [the new rate for that point and band] with effect from April 2018”. </p>
<p>But both Unison and NHS Employers have today made clear to OurNHS that
that member of staff would be paid only £25,934 from the 1 April. That’s only around a <em>quarter</em> of their
promised 2018 increase on basic pay (a
difference of nearly £100 a month in this typical example)&nbsp;<span>until
their increment payment kicks in at their anniversary date at some point over
the following 12 months</span>.</p>
<p>The RCN also
told OurNHS that<strong> </strong>“the
original calculator is for existing staff, and
the&nbsp;NHS&nbsp;Employers&nbsp;poster sets out what new staff will earn. Two
different tools serving different purposes. Existing staff should use the old
calculator to work out their pay uplift.” But this is not what other unions and
NHS Employers seem to be saying.</p>
<p>OurNHS asked the RCN if they understood why staff
might feel they had been misled. They replied, “We are
working with&nbsp;NHS&nbsp;Employers&nbsp;to produce a simple explanation of
the differences between the individual pay journey document, and the pay
calculator, pay scales and new web tool, to prevent further confusion and
information overload.&nbsp;We are hoping this will be published this Friday
20th July in time for pay day the following week.”</p>
<p>OurNHS has
approached NHS Employers for comment, but has not received any formal statement
at the time of writing.</p>
<p>GMB’s
National Officer Rachel Harrison commented, “All that glitters is not gold and
it's now clear that Jeremy Hunt's last act was to try and mislead NHS workers
who have already endured years of real-terms pay cuts. We have always warned
that the devil would be in the detail, and so it has proved...That is why GMB
is holding an indicative ballot for industrial action over this pay
offer."</p>
<p>Furthermore,
the GMB told OurNHS that under the pay deal, the ‘increment’ is no longer
automatic or definite – in future, it will depend on assessment, though there
will be a transitional period (though we've been told contradictory infomation about this).</p>
<p>A Unison
spokesperson told OurNHS that the need
to implement the pay offer as soon as possible meant that the existing issue of
the split between April part rises and incremental / anniversary rises later in
the year, had not been addressed. The union’s deputy head of health, Helga
Pile, said “this agreement won’t solve all problems overnight, but it will ease the
financial strain suffered by staff over many years. The deal delivers
substantial increases to starting salaries, meaningful pay rises on promotion
and faster progression through most pay bands”.</p>
<p>The small
print in the materials promoted to staff <em>did</em> make reference to increment
dates, OurNHS has established. But the question remains, were both the
employers and the union leaderships (except the GMB) perhaps (after years of
bruising battles, and a long strike over separate junior doctors’ negotiations
the previous year) perhaps a little too keen on sealing a deal?</p>
<p>The confusion is likely to stoke fury, with many
staff affected across the board.<strong> </strong>A senior
nurse or Occupational Therapist on pay band 6, point 28, was promised an
increase of £3,995 in year one – but instead, according to NHS Employers, from
April 2018 they’ll get only £508 more until their incremental increase kicks
in. At more junior levels an experienced Healthcare Assistant in the middle of
Band 3 will have been expecting their pay to rise by £1039, but instead from
April 2018&nbsp;<span>until
their increment kicks in&nbsp;</span>will get an increase of only £291 a year. Such examples are typical -
according to OurNHS’s calculations, on the basis of the pay calculator
information, NHS employees (averaged across all grades and pay points) were
expecting a pay rise from April 2018 of £2,184.18 a year. To begin with at
least, they’ll get less than half that – an average across all grades from
April 2018 of £973.16. (Note – all these figures are higher than the actual
average across <em>all staff</em>, because they are skewed by the relatively
small number of staff on higher grades).</p>
<p>The deal also incudes a "no detriment" clause, which means that no one should be worse off. But mmembers of
NHS staff Facebook groups were last night saying they felt “shafted”, “screwed
over” and that “the government has lied” – with some also criticising
unions.&nbsp;<span>All of this gives weight to <a href="https://opendemocracy.net/ournhs/mark-boothroyd/why-nhs-staff-should-ditchthedeal-reject-government-pay-offer">union activists warnings</a> that NHS staff would have been better rejecting the pay deal and taking further industrial action.</span></p><p class="mag-quote-center">we all deserve to be told why the deal being implemented by the Employers is not the deal many members believed they had voted for</p>
<p><a href="http://www.labournet.net/ukunion/1807/nhspay1.html">Unison
activist Greg Dropkin commented last night</a> that the source of the discrepancy was “unclear”
but he suspected there had been “a failure to explain during the vote that the
pay table as circulated did not show the rate for each pay point, but the rate
which an employee who was on that pay point in 2017/18 could “expect” to
receive in each of the following years…we all deserve to be told why the deal
being implemented by the Employers is not the deal many members believed they
had voted for”.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Perhaps
it’s just a case of ‘buyer beware’ – or ‘voter beware’ (there’s a lot of that
about in Brexit Britain). Should have read the small print. </p>
<p>And
perhaps it’s just sheer chance that NHS Employers happened to release actual
figures last week, when just about everyone’s attention was maxed out with
Donald Trump’s visit, the World Cup and the government falling apart.</p>
<p>Certainly,
our investigation suggests there are serious questions to answer about whether
NHS workers were misinformed about the impact on their pay, and if so, what
that means for the future.</p><p><em>19 July: This article has been amended to clarify that no staff should be worse off as a result of this deal, and that we've been told contradictory information about the exact timing of changes to the increment process.</em></p><p><em>20 July: this article has been further amended to remove reference to average salary changes while we discuss these with health unions.</em></p><p><span><em>25
July: this article has been amended to reinstate the reference to average changes,
and also to further clarify the timing of those changes and that there are some
groups of staff not affected by these issues.</em></span></p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/caroline-molloy/nhs-pay-deal-row-intensifies-as-nurses-call-for-union-leader-to-quit">NHS pay deal row intensifies as nurses call for union leader to quit</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by NC 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSukourNHSCaroline MolloyWed, 18 Jul 2018 16:23:16 +0000Caroline Molloy118923 at https://www.opendemocracy.netThe NHS proves there’s always been an alternativehttps://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/laurie-laybourn-langton/nhs-proves-there-s-always-been-alternative
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
As Britain’s National Health Service celebrates 70 years today, its troubles expose neoliberalism’s lies. </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/NHS-image-960x605.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/NHS-image-960x605.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="290" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'></span></span><em>Image: Birmingham Eastside, CC 2.0</em></p><p>Emerging
from the ashes of the Second World War, the founding principles of the NHS –
free to all, at the point of use, beyond the insurance principle – allowed
Britain to win the peace. Universal health coverage - founded across the UK seventy years ago today - gave succour to a sick and
dispirited nation, providing the conditions in which Fordist
consumer-capitalism could mature by creating a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lecture/transcript/download/aneurin-bevan-and-the-socialist-ideal/">“secret,
silent column”</a>&nbsp;of healthy and productive citizens who helped
usher in the post-war Keynesian boom. For a nation bowed but unbroken,
scuttling its empire in a new age of human rights, it may have seemed
reasonable for Aneurin Bevan to proclaim that Britain, with its NHS, now had
“the moral leadership of the world”.</p>
<p>This
was an era of rapid and momentous change. Little less than a year before, at
the stroke of midnight, the nations of India and Pakistan achieved freedom from
a dying empire; in 1948, as 4th&nbsp;July
turned to 5th, the
British people could dream of freedom from fear.</p><h2>Support for the NHS across the British state</h2>
<p>The
NHS was the archetypal child of its ideological time. The concept of public
healthcare under the NHS model sat atop a new wave of political and economic
ideas. Centralised state bureaucracies and Keynesian demand management washed
away the failed political economy of the Wall Street Crash and the Great
Depression. As Bevan pushed through his plan for a publicly provided rather
than ‘publicly organised’ NHS, a former Conservative health secretary&nbsp;<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/460009.stm">asserted</a>&nbsp;that
this “would destroy so much in this country that we value”. Precisely the
opposite occurred.</p>
<p>However,
contrary to some contemporary opinion, this revolutionary turn in the role and
functions of government came with broad support from across the British state.
This is not to disavow the achievement, merely a reminder that the time for a
profound shift in political and economic ideas had come. When it came again, in
the late seventies and early eighties, the vanguard of the new order identified
themselves almost in direct opposition to what the NHS stood for, the ideas
that justified it, and the objective reality it delivered.</p>
<p>The
NHS has always been the target of opprobrium from the intellectual evangelists
of incongruous market liberalism. This is the case whether they are set to gain
from outsourcing and privatisation, or are merely captured by the shadows on
the collective cave of our economic discourse. In the case of the former, from
its&nbsp;inception, health insurance giants watched the NHS and pumped money
into proto-neoliberal think tanks that criticised all facets of Britain’s
public healthcare model with gleeful abandon.</p><p class="mag-quote-center">proto-neoliberal think tanks that criticised all facets of Britain’s public healthcare model with gleeful abandon</p>
<p>It
was in reaction to an attack on the principles of non-fee-paying blood donation
that the sociologist Richard Titmuss wrote<em>&nbsp;The Gift Relationship</em>,
his seminal exploration of the impacts of pecuniary incentives in social
policy. Titmuss warned that the unabashed introduction of markets into
previously untouched areas of policy would result in a destructive, pervasive
“ideology to end all ideologies”. Into what future would we now head if it was
this book that British prime ministers pulled from their bags, slammed onto
tables, and over which they declared “this is what we believe”?</p><h2>Neoliberal revolution strikes</h2>
<p>As
the post-war consensus fell, practical men, finding themselves quite exempt
from intellectual influence, slaved away to deliver the assertions of defunct
economists. The theoretical basis of neoliberal economic ideas considers
markets the superior means of coordinating allocation of resources under
conditions of scarcity. However, when applied to healthcare, market dynamics
are profoundly inappropriate. This is not the case with, say, food, where you,
endowed with sufficient information on which apple is appropriate for your own
needs, can enjoy the benefits of a plurality of apple vendors, each optimising
their products and prices to meet market demand. For serious heart problems,
even a world-renowned cardiothoracic&nbsp;surgeon would suffer from incomplete
understanding of her condition and treatment, opening up information asymmetries
with the consultant sitting opposite.</p>
<p>It
took until the nineties for the neoliberal revolution to strike the NHS. Market
structures were the order of the day as the state sailed heroically into the
End of History. The NHS, as with all areas of public provision, was now going
to compete – by hell, high-water or penalty imposed from central government.
That it has taken until now for the contradictions, inefficiencies and failures
of marketisation to be recognised by elements of the political mainstream
stands testament to the dangerous paucity of our policy discourse. One cannot
look upon the collapse of Carillion and the eye-watering&nbsp;<a href="https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06007">cost
of the Private Finance Initiative</a>&nbsp;– £310 billion&nbsp;for
assets worth around £55 billion – without concluding that something is
profoundly wrong with those economic ideas that justify such cruel, inefficient
policies. Where does duty of care come in a contract that allows a private company
to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/pfi-what-private-finance-initiatives-good-bad-carillion-collapse-public-sector-contracts-government-a8165971.html">charge
an NHS hospital</a>£333 for a lightbulb?</p><h2>Marketisation brings waste, moral hazard and structural risks</h2>
<p>The
NHS under neoliberalism has failed on its own terms. Firstly, inappropriate and
unnecessary marketisation has delivered waste, moral hazard, and, ultimately,
exposed the system to structural risks, imposing large costs on the taxpayer
through the socialisation of failure. The Centre for Health and the Public
Interest estimates that the annual cost of marketisation in the NHS is in
excess of £4.5 billion per year, with additional start-up costs of over&nbsp;<a href="https://chpi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/At-what-cost-paying-the-price-for-the-market-in-the-English-NHS-by-Calum-Paton.pdf">£3
billion per major market reform</a>. Indeed, the benefits of market
‘reforms’ have always been hotly contested, with opposition across academics
and health practitioners, who stress a high opportunity cost in forgone patient
care and clinical innovation.</p>
<p>Secondly,
privatisation – distinct to the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-capita-patient-risk-outsourcing-gp-pharmacy-dentists-privatisation-england-a8354651.html">wasteful
outsourcing</a>&nbsp;of healthcare provision to private companies – has
seen the loss of assets built up over decades and paid for by generations of
taxpayers, a particularly vindictive, socially and economically irrational
policy. For example, the coalition government famously sold 80% of the UK’s
blood plasma resource company to Bain Capital for £90 million, putting the
security of blood supplies at risk. Bain soon&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bpl.co.uk/about-bpl/news/q/date/2016/08/02/press-release-creat-group-corporation-completes-acquisition-of-bio-products-laboratory-ltd/">enjoyed
profits</a>&nbsp;in excess of £700 million when the company was
subsequently sold to Chinese investors. Into the future, the government is
seeking to sell large quantities of NHS land, imposing the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/358/bmj.j4290.full.pdf">opportunity cost</a>&nbsp;of
missed public investment in productive assets, such as the construction of much
needed hospitals and the installation of renewable energy that could power the
NHS and reduce its carbon emissions.</p><p class="mag-quote-center">the loss of assets built up over decades and paid for by generations of taxpayers</p>
<p>Thirdly,
it has simply been a deliberate political choice to underfund the NHS over a
period that now approaches a decade. Over the 2015/16 financial year, NHS
trusts and foundation trusts fell into a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/trusts-deficit">combined
deficit</a>&nbsp;of nearly £2.5 billion, only three years after
reporting a surplus of over £500 million. While the changing nature of ill
health and demand for services plays a part, this gap has opened up due to a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/why-is-the-nhs-in-crisis/">deliberate
policy of underfunding</a>: real terms increases in NHS funding were
0.9% a year between 2010-2015, in contrast to an average of 3.7% over its
lifetime. There is now a near universal consensus that the NHS is underfunded
and that the lack of resource is the greatest contributor to successive crises
– something that even the government has begun recognised. In all, health and
social care spending cuts have been linked to&nbsp;<a href="https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/11/e017722">120,000 excess
deaths</a>.</p>
<p>At
best, the justifications for George Osborne’s ‘Age of Austerity’ were the
spurious frenzies of a politician appealing to the polluted ideas of a
discredited yesteryear to benefit wealthy vested interests. At worst, they have
cost lives and halted the inexorable, centuries-long tradition of improvement
in public health driven by the noble efforts of British academics and
clinicians. Do not forget that life expectancy had been rising continuously for
over one hundred years, a trend that has&nbsp;<a href="http://marmot-review.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/ncds-health-equity-and-social.html">likely
faltered</a>&nbsp;because of the political choice to cut public
expenditure, with the rate of increase in life expectancy having dropped by
almost 50% since austerity began. If medical science has been of the greatest
benefit to mankind, uncritical adherence to outworn economic dogma has been of
the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/may/27/economic-stuckler-money-king-review">greatest
detriment</a>.</p><h2>The human cost</h2>
<p>For
the neoliberal experiment, as in nearly all areas of policy, has imposed a
wicked cost on our health. It has damaged systems that seemed to be working
moderately well in the past and eroded the institutional basis upon which we
can effectively respond to the challenges of the age. Take the future of the
digital technology, which could alter social and economic relations at a pace
and scale not seen since the Industrial Revolution. The manner in which digital
technology is integrated into healthcare in the UK is and will always be a
political choice. Smart phones, ubiquitous data collection and machine learning
could be harnessed by the NHS to better realise its founding principles,
creating possibilities beyond the wildest imaginings of Bevan, Beveridge et al.
Instead, the digital frontier is dominated by multinational monopolists and
speculators pumping money into consumerist start-ups that flood markets
springing up in anticipation of continued underfunding and privatisation. We
can do better.</p>
<p>Moreover,
the very basis of our healthcare model is being shaken by demographic change
and a shift in the nature of ill health. Underfunding is simply unsustainable
in the face of these trends. Into the future, environmental change, already
described as the greatest threat (<a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60931-X/abstract">and
opportunity</a>) to public health, will determine the parameters of our
healthcare imaginations. There is no room for systemic waste, fragmented
private providers, and the inefficient adoption of innovative technologies in a
world that has warmed by 1.5C and in which the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/">majority
of soil fertility has been lost</a>.</p><h2>What is to be done?</h2>
<p>What
is to be done? Much of a post-neoliberal approach to the NHS must seek to
repair the damage done over the last few decades. Primarily, the NHS needs to
be adequately funded as part of a wider move away from the discredited policy
of austerity. Ill health over the period of fiscal retrenchment has resulted
from damage to the systems of the state, encompassing everything from transport
to social care, that provide the foundations upon which good health can spring.
It will be a tragedy if the number of lives lost during the application of
these failed, pre-Keynesian ideas should not banish them forever.</p>
<p>The
government’s recent pledge to up NHS spending by an average of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/funding-settlement-a-big-step-forward-but-pm-s-ambition-for-world-class-nhs-difficult-to-achieve">around
3% a year</a>&nbsp;to 2023/24 does not do this. It is below the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/press/press-releases/4-billion-needed-next-year-to-stop-nhs-care-deteriorating">4.3%
annual growth needed</a>&nbsp;to keep pace with demand and much lower
than that needed to recover from the damage wrought by the past eight years of
underfunding. What’s more, the funding is delayed until next year, opening up a
cavern across which the NHS must jump and into which much of it could fall,
particularly if another cold winter pushes the service into collapse. The
increase also leaves out public health, staff training and building and other
key capital investments. It has nothing to say about the cost of debt
repayment.</p>
<p>Marketisation
can no longer be the first port of call for policymakers, as should be the case
across the public sector. This includes needing to handle the growing burden of
PFI debts, with options including the centralisation and renegotiation of
contracts. Into the future, the social, environmental and economic power of the
NHS should be brought to bear, with hospitals acting as ‘<a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k2101">anchor institutions</a>’
that provide a local basis for everything from the rollout of clean energy
through building energy assets on NHS land, to improving employment standards
by targeting local recruitment and procurement. These developments are already
occurring, with, for example, some hospitals in London&nbsp;<a href="http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/42570/gospel-oak-a-district-heating-success-story/">recycling
their heat into local housing</a>. Maximising the local socioeconomic
role of the NHS could also present a more meaningfully democratised approach to
decision-making.</p>
<p>Until
then, be wise to what neoliberalism has done and will continue to do to the
NHS. Born of war and strife, Britain’s health service celebrates its 70th&nbsp;birthday in a bad way – bowed, nearly broken, ill-prepared
to suffer the burden of continued underfunding and held together by the
goodwill of staff. All the while, foreign insurance giants watch with patient
eyes for opportunities arising from Brexit trade deals. The NHS is about being
civilised; as we dismantle it, we become less civilised.</p><p class="mag-quote-center">The NHS is about being civilised; as we dismantle it, we become less civilised.</p>
<p>Over
the course of the 70th&nbsp;anniversary,
the official celebrations shall likely focus on NHS staff. Quite right. But do
not forget that the NHS is and has always been about economics, politics and
power. It is about multinational corporations getting richer while sick people
die in corridors. It is about bright young management consultants repeating
failed economic cantations to justify inefficiency. Alone in a society
brutalised by years of austerity, the NHS is increasingly the first and last
line of care for people up and down the country, and is kept going by the
blood, sweat and tears of its staff.</p>
<p>The
NHS is no longer national. Fragmented and sucked dry of resources, it cannot
invest in responding to modern health problems. The NHS is increasingly
becoming a logo under which private enterprise may suckle on the teat of the
state, growing fat off our taxes. The predicament of the NHS at 70 is the
result of a concerted application of failed economic ideology. Neoliberalism’s
legacy is the private ambulance provider who bungles an emergency call because
their staff are under-trained and poorly equipped; it is the baby who dies in
the night, away from their parents, as the private provider of an out-of-hours
service fails to adequately respond. Stand this no longer. If the Labour Party
are to enter government in the near future, a test of their willingness to
deliver a new society will be whether they create a post-neoliberal NHS.</p>
<p>The
NHS can be all that its staff and its patients believe it to be. A harbour in
which fear is kept at bay, in which everyone maintains the right to be relieved
of the pressures of ill health. In the final analysis, the crisis of
neoliberalism is inherently a political crisis founded on the inadequacy of a
certain set of economic ideas. In the same way that the NHS has always proven
there is an alternative, the orthodox approach to healthcare policy proves that
we need, now more than ever, an alternative to neoliberalism.</p>
<p><em>This essay is a modified version of an
article&nbsp;<a href="https://www.themintmagazine.com/issue-5-laybourn">published
in the Mint</a>.</em></p><div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by NC 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSourNHSLaurie Laybourn-LangtonThu, 05 Jul 2018 12:25:00 +0000Laurie Laybourn-Langton118724 at https://www.opendemocracy.netIs the government telling us the truth about GDPR and our NHS medical data? https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/phil-booth/is-government-telling-us-truth-about-gdpr-and-your-nhs-medical-data
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>If you want to make sure your medical data isn’t shared with third parties for unknown purposes, you may need to take action now. Here’s why – and how.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/safe_share_padlock.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/safe_share_padlock.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="227" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'></span></span><em>Image: Yuri Samoilov/Flickr, CCBY licence.</em></p><p>If you happen to visit your doctor in the next
few weeks, you may (or may not) spot a new poster or leaflet; they are NHS
blue, with a yellow stripe at the bottom, headlined “Your Data Matters to the
NHS”. Like all those e-mails you’ve been receiving asking you to opt in to
receiving marketing, the poster and leaflet has been prompted by GDPR – but
it’s about something rather different, and the choice you are being offered is
an opt <em>out</em>, not an opt in.</p>
<p>Simply put, if you have concerns about what’s
being done with your medical records – who is getting access to them, and how
are they being used – you have the right to opt out of uses of your own health
information for purposes beyond your individual care.</p>
<p>This ‘new’ National Data Opt-out that you may
(or may not) hear of is in fact based on one of the old care.data opt-outs,
formerly known to doctors and Government as a ‘Type 2’, renamed so that – by
2020, we are told – care providers all across the NHS and care system will be
able to see and honour your consent choice about what happens to your medical
data.</p>
<p>Great, in theory. But in practice?</p>
<p>If you do see the poster, and follow the link
– it’s <span><a href="https://www.nhs.uk/your-nhs-data-matters/">nhs.uk/your-nhs-data-matters/</a></span>
– you’re told you can exercise your right to choose using a new ‘digital’ opt
out process. Unfortunately, NHS Digital’s new process ignores the reality of
many patients’ lives and – despite Government digital guidelines – fails to
serve families, or the most vulnerable. So much for bridging the digital
divide, and reaching the ‘furthest first’...</p>
<p>Notably, too, if your family has children
under the age of 13, or if you look after a dependent older relative, then
things are even more complicated. Rather than giving a simple instruction to
your doctor, those who would prefer their children’s data <em>wasn’t</em> sold to third parties for unknown purposes, will be required
to send to NHS Digital, by post, four pieces of ID and documentation along with
a seven-page form. So much for Jeremy Hunt’s much-vaunted commitment to a
‘paperless’ NHS</p>
<p>So much for the process – what then happens to
your information?</p>
<p>The poster and leaflet go on to say:</p>
<p>“<em>In May 2018, the strict rules
about how this data can and cannot be used were strengthened. The NHS is
committed to keeping patient information safe and always being clear about how
it is used.”</em></p>
<p>You only have to look at (our slightly more
readable version of) NHS Digital’s Data Release Register at <span><a href="https://www.theysolditanyway.com/">TheySoldItAnyway.com</a></span> to see that
little substantive has changed in practice. </p>
<p>NHS patients’ data is still being sold to a
variety of customers – including for-profit ‘information intermediaries’ which
continue to serve commercial customers of their own, including pharmaceutical
marketers and private providers.</p>
<p>The law, however, <em>has</em> changed. </p>
<p>As of May 23rd, the UK has a new Data
Protection Act 2018 – replacing the expired 1998 Act and bringing the
provisions of GDPR into UK law.</p>
<p>NHS Digital, however, holds itself to the
Information Commissioner’s old, pre-GDPR, non-statutory Code of Practice on
Anonymisation – claiming this allows it to continue to <span><a href="https://medconfidential.org/2017/your-hospital-data-is-still-being-sold-and-heres-why-it-matters/">ignor</a><a href="https://medconfidential.org/2017/your-hospital-data-is-still-being-sold-and-heres-why-it-matters/">e</a><a href="https://medconfidential.org/2017/your-hospital-data-is-still-being-sold-and-heres-why-it-matters/"> 1.4 million patients’ opt-outs</a></span>, as
it carries on selling ‘Hospital Episode Statistics’ data. </p>
<p>This approach has passed its sell by date;
GDPR provides a wider definition of what is ‘identifiable’ data – i.e. data
that can be used, including by combining it with other sources of data, to
identify individuals, <a href="https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/what-is-personal-data/what-is-personal-data/">even if supposedly anonymised</a>. UK law agrees
with this wider definition, at least in theory – and both GDPR and our new Data
Protection Act agree that any information about a person’s physical or mental
health is <em>sensitive</em> personal data,
and requires additional protections. </p>
<p>Given that ‘Hospital Episode Statistics’ (HES)
consists of ‘patient-level’ lifelong medical histories – each row in the data
referring to a single person, with every individually-dated hospital event they
experienced linked together using a ‘pseudonym’, and containing many other
items of data that can act as ‘identifiers’ – it can count as ‘identifiable’
data under the new law and therefore also sensitive personal data, as
medConfidential and others have been saying for years – although <a href="https://www.hsj.co.uk/technology-and-innovation/patient-data-flow-suspended-amid-11th-hour-gdpr-confusion/7022507.article">confusion
over the new laws seems to have stretched to the top of NHS Digital</a>, and
discussions are ongoing.</p>
<p>Why does this matter? Your medical history is
like a fingerprint – unique to you, and identifiable by almost trivial means: a
mother with two children is over 99% likely to be identifiable from their
children's birth dates alone, and <span><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-44155784">a single news report</a></span> could provide
the information required to identify the unfortunate subject’s entire hospital
history. A single breach of HES could expose millions of patients’ hospital
histories, a disaster orders of magnitude greater than the <span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/nov/21/immigrationpolicy.economy3">loss of the HMRC Child Benefit discs</a></span>
in 2009.</p>
<p>This also means that, as of May 25th, any <em>customer</em> of NHS Digital receiving full
copies of HES is now handling identifiable, sensitive personal data – so if any
patient’s opt-out is not being honoured (i.e. if their row of data is not being
removed from HES) then, once again, NHS patients are being lied to. You can
check for yourself the lists of organisations with projects that ignored opt
outs, and those that honoured them, at <span><a href="https://www.theysolditanyway.com/">TheySoldItAnyway.com</a></span>.</p>
<p>Aside from the posters and leaflets, some
patients are being written to directly. But only those who already opted out –
clearly NHS England is content, as it was in 2014, for large parts of the rest
of the population to remain in the dark. (While NHS Digital must write to those
patients who opted out already, it is NHS England’s responsibility to communicate
with everyone else.)</p>
<p>Is what patients are told true? The opt-out
should apply to all identifiable data; is that what NHS Digital is doing?</p>
<p>NHS England is looking to “empower the
patient” by giving already empowered patients marginally more, while ensuring
it remains accountable to no-one. For example, aside from “research and
planning” uses, how does NHS England itself use data? And can a patient see the
list?</p>
<p>medConfidential works to ensure every use of
patients’ data is consensual, safe, and transparent. Unlike NHS Digital, NHS
England has largely avoided writing down who does what with patients’ data and
why, and because of that has accumulated a massive transparency backlog. Though
they go beyond research and planning, NHS England’s current uses are likely
(almost) all legal – but it can’t explain how, and some of its proposed future
uses are still obscure. </p>
<p>medConfidential believes there need be no
conflict between good research, good ethics and good medical care; indeed we
are enthusiasts of lawful, ethical medical research. By and large, the
standards researchers have to meet mean their use of NHS patients’ data already
meet GDPR requirements – the paperwork they have to fill in has helped in that.</p>
<p><strong>Commercial
deals</strong></p>
<p>Many people have concerns about private
companies doing data processing for the NHS; cases such as the <span><a href="https://medconfidential.org/whats-the-story/health-data-ai-and-google-deepmind/">illegal deal between Google DeepMind and the Royal Free
Hospital</a></span> suggest some caution is justified. The most
toxic problem, however, remains commercial <em>reuse</em>
by ‘information intermediaries’ – some of which appear in the <span><a href="https://www.theysolditanyway.com/">list of organisations that have breached</a></span>
not only their contracts with NHS, but existing data protection law.</p>
<p>Promises about the NHS “<em>always being clear about how [patient information] is used” </em>(that
poster again...) ring somewhat hollow, while for-profit companies continue
using contractual agreements with the NHS as a figleaf to do work for
commercial customers such as Pharma marketers who – <span><a href="https://www.nhs.uk/your-nhs-data-matters/who-uses-your-data/">despite promises elsewhere</a></span> that
patient information <em>won’t</em> be used for
“marketing purposes” – use the information to market to doctors. </p>
<p>Patients should know how their information is
used if they are to make an informed choice. ‘Your NHS Data Matters’ provides <em>some</em> information about this, but omits
some of the more unpalatable truths about what is happening – undermining the
important promises it makes.</p>
<p>If after checking <span><a href="https://www.nhs.uk/your-nhs-data-matters/">what
the NHS says</a></span> and <span><a href="https://www.theysolditanyway.com/">what it
does</a></span>, you do have concerns, medConfidential suggests you
opt out now. Opting out will not affect your individual care, and you can
always opt in later – e.g. when you are satisfied proper protections are in place.
</p>
<p><em>If you
use medConfidential’s <span><a href="https://medconfidential.org/how-to-opt-out/">opt-out
form</a></span>, your GP data will be covered as well as your
hospital data.</em></p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/phil-booth/your-medical-data-on-sale-for-pound">Your medical data - on sale for a pound</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/jane-fae/sleepwalking-into-information-grab-by-private-health">Sleepwalking into an information grab by private health?</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/phil-booth/caredata-is-dead-long-live-caredata">Care.data is dead - long live care.data?</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/tamasin-cave/tim-telstra-and-tech-takeover-of-nhs">Tim, Telstra, and the tech takeover of the NHS</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/jane-fae/your-medical-data-in-their-hands-concerns-mount-over-new-nhs-it-project">Your medical data in their hands - concerns mount over new NHS IT project</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/jane-fae/caredata-questions-mount-just-wholl-get-our-medical-data">Care.data questions mount - just who&#039;ll get our medical data?</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by NC 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSukourNHSPhil BoothMon, 25 Jun 2018 11:47:48 +0000Phil Booth118577 at https://www.opendemocracy.netWant better protection for whistleblowers? Your experiences needed!https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/minh-alexander-clare-sardari/want-better-protection-for-whistleblowers-your-experiences-needed
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p class="p1">From the NHS to rigged elections, care homes to financial fraud - existing UK whistleblowing protection laws are not protecting concerned staff, nor the public. Call for evidence for forthcoming expert event.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/whistleblow.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/whistleblow.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="307" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'></span></span><em>Image: Stephen Depolo/Flickr. Rights: CC 2.0.</em></p><p class="p1">The freedom of ordinary people to
look after each other is fundamental to values of decency and fairness.</p>
<p class="p1">Whistleblowing is a vital part of
this and whether it is hospital workers raising the alarm over unsafe care,
care home staff reporting abuse of older people, financial sector staff flagging
up fraud or tech workers speaking out about stolen elections, the function of whistleblowing
is to uphold the common good and to protect other people’s rights.</p>
<p class="p1">Powerful organisations sometimes
suppress whistleblowers, quite brutally. In the UK the law which is supposed to
protect workers who whistleblow, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998
(PIDA), does not actually protect.</p>
<p class="p1">PIDA only allows whistleblowers to
sue employers for compensation after they have been seriously harmed, for
example if they are unfairly dismissed. Compensation is not guaranteed and is
not usually enough to reflect loss of livelihood and blacklisting. Neither does
it make up for the trauma that many whistleblowers and their families
experience.</p>
<p class="p1">PIDA does not even ensure that
whistleblowers’ concerns are properly investigated. It does not hold the
individuals who cover up and victimise whistleblowers to account. PIDA cases are
hard to win because of the way the law is structured and because employers
usually outgun whistleblowers in court. This particularly happens in the public
sector where taxpayers pick up very large legal bills for cases that are in
fact fought against their interests.</p>
<p class="p1">Far from being protected, whistleblowers
are in reality vulnerable to mistreatment by overbearing employers.</p>
<p class="p1">The weakness of UK whistleblowing
law allows those who speak up in the public interest to be legally mobbed and
robbed. Too many end up with broken health and insecure futures.</p>
<p class="p1">There is no meaningful deterrence
against this. Professor David Lewis of Middlesex University who led the
research for the Freedom To Speak Up Review on NHS whistleblowing comments:</p>
<p class="p1"><em>"A major problem in relation to reprisals being
taken against UK whistleblowers is that retaliators can simply pay compensation
in order to get out of trouble. In some countries this matter is taken more
seriously and retaliation is treated as criminal offence. While I would not
anticipate that many people would be prosecuted if&nbsp;</em><em>criminal sanctions were introduced in the UK, the
possibility might deter some inappropriate behaviour and would send out a
positive message about the importance of whistleblowing in a democratic
society".</em></p>
<p class="p1">We and other whistleblowers across
all sectors believe that PIDA should be replaced.</p>
<p class="p1">We have negotiated <a href="https://minhalexander.com/2018/04/26/a-whistleblower-led-event-on-uk-whistleblowing-law-reform-the-public-interest-disclosure-act-needs-to-be-replaced/">an
event sponsored by the NHS National Freedom To Speak Up Guardian </a>,
to be held this coming 19 October, which will present expert legal evidence on the
need to reform UK whistleblowing law reform.</p>
<p class="p1">Ministers and the Law Commission,
which has responsibility for reviewing inefficient and flawed law, will be
invited.</p>
<p class="p1">Eminent specialist speakers on
whistleblowing law, <a href="https://www.mdx.ac.uk/about-us/our-people/staff-directory/profile/lewis-dave">Professor
David Lewis </a>of Middlesex University, <a href="https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/law/staff/ashley-savage/">Dr Ashley Savage </a>of
Liverpool University and Employment Law and Whistleblowing Specialist <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauren-kierans-1b8a01a0">Lauren
Kierans </a></p>
<p class="p1">Barrister, will discuss a range of
issues, including the need for meaningful penalties for whistleblower reprisal,
the need for pro-active (or ‘pre-detriment’) protection starting from the point
that workers whistleblow, and the need to compel the proper investigation of
whistleblowers’ concerns.</p>
<p class="p1">To support the case for law reform,
and to inform this event, we will shortly invite whistleblowers from all
sectors <span>with experience of using PIDA</span>
to submit written evidence. All such first-hand accounts will be very valuable
in driving improvements.</p>
<p class="p1">Any whistleblowers who want to
register interest in the project and to be kept informed about the forthcoming
call for evidence can contact us <a href="https://minhalexander.com/contact/">here.</a></p>
<p class="p1">Some outline information for
whistleblowers about the project can be found <a href="https://minhalexander.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/forthcoming-call-for-evidence-from-whistleblowers-for-a-symposium-on-replacing-the-public-interest-disclosure-act-1998.pdf">here.</a></p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/rebecca-sentance/why-whistleblowers-are-essential-to-democracy">Why whistleblowers are essential to democracy</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/minh-alexander/no-one-believes-jeremy-hunt-on-patient-safety-and-whistleblowers-not-even-his-">No-one believes Jeremy Hunt on patient safety and whistleblowers – not even his own appointees</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/uk/brexitinc/peter-geoghegan-adam-ramsay/new-evidence-that-leave-groups-co-ordinated-to-get-round-re">&#039;Crimes&#039; committed by Brexit campaigners? One extraordinary coincidence offers a new clue</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/minh-alexander-anonymous-pam-linton-clare-sardari/why-is-cqc-ignoring-or-even-suppressing-pri">Who&#039;s keeping a lid on &quot;priceless&quot; whistleblower information in our health system - and why?</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by NC 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ukukourNHSClare SardariMinh AlexanderFri, 01 Jun 2018 11:48:34 +0000Minh Alexander and Clare Sardari118197 at https://www.opendemocracy.netThe great NHS property sell-off gathers pacehttps://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/jessica-ormerod/great-nhs-property-sell-off-gathers-pace
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>A reliance on firesales of NHS buildings – both unused and currently in use – returns us to the bad old days of a few rich London hospitals and impoverished hospitals everywhere else.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/nhs for sale building.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/nhs for sale building.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="368" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'></span></span><em>Image: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/saulalbert/37947961555">Saul Albert/Flickr</a>, CC 2.0.</em></p><p>On 18 May, in its
property section, the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/18/royal-free-secretly-planning-to-develop-100-year-old-hospital-into-luxury-flats">Guardian ran an article</a>&nbsp;entitled ‘NHS privately planning to
develop Royal Free nurses’ home into luxury flats.’</p>
<p>A week earlier&nbsp;<a href="https://www.hsj.co.uk/university-college-london-hospitals-nhs-foundation-trust/teaching-trust-boasts-76m-surplus-after-asset-sales-and-stf-bonus/7022345.article?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWVdVMk16STFNbUZqTURobSIsInQiOiJrQjZyUVQ5RnVHZWwyQzJtRmRcL1p0bjE1d0tYQ1FoM2YwYVk0NXhZeFBvOFdIalJWdlF4aEZYTUIzZUFGanZjajNURXVjbGx3UEIwUm9EcHNuMmNCV3dLR2lyNzcwXC9sUWZ2UTZCcVR1RlA4U3BUdnBBeFpGa2hUc0szdEczVG8rIn0%3D">the HSJ (paywalled) reported</a>&nbsp;that University College London
Hospital Foundation Trust boasted a £76m surplus after asset sales and a
Sustainability and Transformation ‘bonus’. </p>
<p>Most
of&nbsp;the&nbsp;focus on privatisation of the NHS has been
on&nbsp;the&nbsp;outsourcing of clinical services to private health providers.
More recently the creation of wholly-owned private Subsidiary Companies has
attracted attention&nbsp;and they&nbsp;have been&nbsp;<a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-03-06/debates/EEF6EE28-8B5F-4A3A-8C07-8DA267FB6805/NHSWhollyOwnedSubsidiaryCompanies">debated in parliament</a>.&nbsp;But there is consistently less
attention paid to the extent of the policies in place dedicated to selling NHS
land.&nbsp;These policies are shrinking the amount of publicly owned land in the
name of providing cash to ‘pump prime’ transformation.</p>
<p>In a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/08/biggest-privatisation-land-margaret-thatcher-britain-housing-crisis">Guardian article 8 February</a>&nbsp;Brett&nbsp;Christophers,&nbsp;Professor&nbsp;of Social and Economic Geography at
Uppsala University wrote, “All told, around 2 million hectares of public land
have been privatised during the past four decades. This amounts to an
eye-watering 10% of the entire British land mass, and about half of all the
land that was owned by public bodies when (Mrs) Thatcher assumed power.” </p>
<p>Despite all
protestations to the contrary the NHS has been increasingly expected to
transform to commercial business practice over the last 40 years and the
articles above illustrate the effects of those policies. This is a mass
transfer of property from public to&nbsp;private ownership. It has affected our
utilities, education, the courts, probation and prison service, housing – and
the NHS. There are no exceptions. </p>
<h2>Reducing the NHS Estate: The 5 Year Forward View and&nbsp;The Naylor
review</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/5yfv-web.pdf">The 5 Year Forward View</a>&nbsp;(5YFV)&nbsp;and the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-property-and-estates-naylor-review">Naylor Review</a>&nbsp;are
based specifically on the reduction of the number of sites from which the NHS
operates: fewer GP family practices, closure and downgrading of hospitals,
centralisation of services. The ownership of sections of the NHS is played out
in the language of the private sector – mergers and acquisitions, sweating
assets – and belongs firmly in the realm of privatisation. Sales, leases with
commercial rents for properties that were previously part of a real ‘one public
estate’ and the transfer of properties out of the control of local governing
bodies and into publicly-owned private companies like NHS Property Services are
all part of the process.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Naylor Review was published in March 2017. It
examines how the NHS in England can raise cash from its premises. Its findings
are in line with the requirements set out in the Sustainability and
Transformation Plans (STPs) which were introduced in December 2015 to fast
forward NHS England’s 5YFV.</p>
<p>The Review emphasises the need to develop out of
hospital care and to provide the necessary infrastructure to increase care in
the community. It explicitly states that it is the acute division of the
service that is to be scaled back and the GP family practice model to be
dismantled.</p>
<p>Naylor argues that 57% of the cash that can be
found from the sales which will pump prime these changes will be found in
London. Charing Cross Hospital, for example, may be reduced to just 14% of its
existing area and the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/16/most-of-central-london-hospital-to-be-sold-off-secret-plans-reveal">rest sold off for development</a>. He has a second
report on London estates unpublished for reasons of commercial confidentiality.</p>
<p>The reality for investors looking at development
properties is that central London hospitals occupy valuable sites;
long-derelict, small town general practice surgeries do not. Naylor’s Review
emphasises the combination of sales of existing estates and the introduction of
private finance to create newbuilds as key to changing the Estate to meet the
New Models of Care set out in the 5YFV.</p>
<h2>The danger of taking ‘surplus’ land at face value&nbsp;</h2>
<p>Although the NHS land sales are being used as part
of a programme for enforced change, they are not unique in the public sector.
Across all departments land sales are being promoted as a solution to the
housing crisis. Theresa May chose to prioritise this area in her 2017
conference speech. This appears to be evidence of a worrying trend to prioritise
land values and property, which give high returns to private investors, over
the provision of essential public services. The real risk for the NHS is that
the more it moves from its core purpose, the less likely it is to be there to
provide a service for future generations.</p>
<p>There are a growing number of campaigners, think
tanks and housing organisations who support the ‘release’ of land on the basis
that it should be re-used for beneficial public purpose of a different kind.</p>
<p>For example, New Economics Foundation has&nbsp;<a href="http://neweconomics.org/2017/10/new-map-shows-public-land-sale-brings-people-together-save/">an interactive map</a>&nbsp;which shows a huge
amount of public property for sale and proposes that users start to have a say
in creating new community developments on those sites. The National Housing
Federation produced a briefing,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.housinglin.org.uk/_assets/Resources/Housing/OtherOrganisation/NHF_Releasing_NHS_Estates_Briefing_v3_002.pdf">‘Releasing NHS Estates for Community Benefit’</a>.
Its executive summary says:</p>
<p>“The National Housing
Federation has been working to explore new ways that housing providers and the
NHS can work together to use NHS surplus land. NHS trusts often have surplus land,
but do not have the skills or resources to develop and manage it. Given that
early release housing or key worker housing could provide improved patient
outcomes and reduce cost of care there is a strong case for housing providers
and NHS trusts to work together in developing surplus land.</p>
<p>On this principle three
uses have been identified: step down facility, supported housing and key worker housing.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The challenge with these
proposals are the Treasury targets for income and housing receipts.&nbsp;This
paper, including analysis from Frontier Economics seeks to explore the economic
benefit and examine some specific case studies for how organisations can work
together.”</p>
<h2>The Royal Free and the lie of ‘surplus’ land&nbsp;</h2>
<p>The clash between rhetoric and reality is illustrated
in the case of the Royal Free. In the Guardian article the property for sale is
already keyworker accommodation. But because it is a valuable site it is
proposed that it should be sold off for development for luxury flats. However,
the building itself was gifted to the Royal Free nearly 100 years ago by Lord
Leverhulme. That means that its current running cost will be modest and
accommodation can be provided at low rents. To buy land at current prices in
order to develop new key worker accommodation is likely to be impossible
without increasing rental charges.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>The agents,&nbsp;Frank, Knight and&nbsp;Rutley&nbsp;are advertising the
development on a restricted access webpage. The plans have not yet received
local authority planning permission, but with everyone from the Prime Minister
to local housing campaign groups squarely supporting a policy of surplus land
disposal, it is easy to see why the estate agent is behaving as if it is a
foregone conclusion. In the article, one current resident said, “the trust has
sold several other key worker accommodation blocks in recent years”. “We
wouldn’t be the first residential place they’ve sold,” he said. “They seem to
be doing quite a lot of selling their affordable properties for
development.”&nbsp;</p>
<p>Perhaps the resident was referring to The Royal
Free Foundation Trust acquisition of Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust
in July 2014. Chase Farm Hospital was the focus of local campaigning over the
loss of its A&amp;E but it is now subject to planning permission. Although a
downgraded hospital is included in the plans, the key workers’ accommodation
there has been lost too and 500 residential homes and a primary school will be
built on the site.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<h2>Resistance will be met with regulatory power&nbsp;</h2>
<p>As well as a push to develop any identified
surpluses, Naylor’s recommendations are that GPs must move out of their old
properties which they own into new ones which they will not own. Naylor
suggests,&nbsp;“GP practices can be
given incentives to move into new facilities, supported by substantial private
sector investment. NHS commissioners and regulators have considerable latent
authority to insist that premises be fit for purpose. These powers
could&nbsp;be used far more explicitly to ensure that new investment is in line
with the 5YFV and to force the pace of investment in or exit from inadequate
premises.”&nbsp;</p>
<p>Naylor’s analysis of the GP estate demonstrates a
clear preference and expectation of mass transfer from public to private
ownership and financing. Naylor himself was reported as being delighted at the
£3.3billion of private financing for new primary care facilities. According to
the investors, the money could fund up to 750 new primary care centres but this
is&nbsp;<a href="https://octopushealthcare.com/news/property-investors-make-3-3billion-commitment-to-kick-start-next-generation-of-nhs-medical-centres/">predicted to cost the NHS up to £200million</a>&nbsp;a
year in new rental charges.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Review claims that within each STP those
providers that have greater potential to raise money will share the money with
those poorer and less well-endowed providers they are partnered with. However,
with the bulk of the cash being found from sales in London it is not clear how
these benefits will extend to the whole country. And that highlights a problem
with the Guardian’s headline: ‘NHS
privately planning to develop Royal Free nurses’ home into luxury flats’&nbsp;because
it isn’t ‘the NHS’ that is doing this, it is the Foundation Trust, as a
business, which will reap the profit itself.&nbsp;</p>
<h2>What’s mine is mine: the&nbsp;inexorable&nbsp;rise of the
disproportionately wealthy hospital trusts&nbsp;</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.shelfordgroup.org/">The Shelford Group</a>, representing some of the
richest foundation trusts in the country, raised the issue of cross-subsidy in
their&nbsp;<a href="http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/health-and-social-care-committee/integrated-care-organisations-partnerships-and-systems/written/77219.html">written submission to the Health Select Committee</a>&nbsp;on
Integrated Care Systems. The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.hsj.co.uk/finance-and-efficiency/exclusive-advanced-health-economies-reject-terms-of-system-control-totals/7022146.article">HSJ 13 April 2018</a>&nbsp;reported that the
Integrated Care Systems are under threat from this approach as organisations
are unwilling to risk losing their sustainability funding if a neighbouring
clinical commissioning group fails to meet its plan.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>The HSJ article on University College London
Hospitals Foundation Trust (UCLH) shows just how much that matters. The Trust
has sold The Eastman Dental Hospital site to University College London. It has
also sold a subsidiary company it created in 2011 for its radiology services in
which it had a 50% share in partnership with Australian firm Everlight
Radiology.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The HSJ says,&nbsp;‘the&nbsp;trust said it was approached to dispose of its stake as part
of a process in which&nbsp;Everlight&nbsp;sold its teleradiology business to an
asset management group.’&nbsp;It was sold for £6.1m, generating a profit
of £4.8m. Its original stake in the partnership had been £0.75m.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>These profits will net UCLH additional
Sustainability and Transformation Fund payments of £35m on top of its own core
allocation of £15m. This is the second year running it has accrued substantial
additional payments because of land sales. The extra money comes from awards
allocated but not paid to other Trusts either because they failed to meet their
financial targets or didn’t agree one.&nbsp;</p>
<h2>The&nbsp;PropCo&nbsp;and Commercial Rents&nbsp;</h2>
<p>The 5YFV’s New Models of Care, on which all these
property deals and ‘re-shaping’ of the estate are based, are experimental. Such
a large-scale change without extensive consultation and testing jeopardises the
NHS’s ability to provide safe care. Historically the replacement of NHS delivery
of mental health care led to disastrous consequences for patients. The 5YFV
relies on a similar care-in-the-community model replacing many NHS services
with an emphasis on self-care and non-clinical services. Land sales and
privatisation must be examined in this context.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Health &amp; Social Care Act (2012) made
provision for the creation of the NHS’ own private limited company which was
registered with Companies House in 2011 (before the Act was passed), NHS
Property Services Ltd (PropCo). It owns the property which was previously under
the stewardship of the Strategic Health Authorities and the Primary Care
Trusts. Although it is currently wholly-owned by the Secretary of State for
Health, it is a private limited company. These properties have passed from
public to private ownership.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The precipitous creation of the company and its
nature caused concern to the House of Commons Health Committee. The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Investigation-into-NHS-Property-Services-Limited.pdf">National Audit Office (NAO) investigated</a>&nbsp;and
uncovered failures of good practice.&nbsp;It noted that the government had
failed to properly consider forms of public ownership and failed to provide
detailed operating objectives. The NAO noted that one of the outlined
advantages of setting up a company was the possibility of a future complete
sale to the private sector. &nbsp;</p>
<p>There is precedent for this with the sale of both
the Department of Work &amp; Pensions estate and the HMRC estate, so this is
not idle speculation.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The PropCo announced
in April 2016 it was to start charging market rents to its NHS tenants with immediate effect. The company has already
commercialised the leases on the properties it acquired. The biggest transfer
of properties so far took place in December 2016, when the company completed
the acquisition of the freeholds of 12 Community Hospitals in Devon into its
ownership, with the last line of their press release stating:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.property.nhs.uk/biggest-transfer-of-properties-to-nhs-property-services/">‘leases to regularise
occupation are currently being finalised’</a>.&nbsp;It is clear that in this context ‘regularise’ can only
mean ‘commercialise’ and that rent increases will follow.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>It is estimated that GP surgeries and Community
Hospitals owned by the PropCo (which are not already listed or projected for
sale) will have to find in the region of £60million a year from their
diminishing incomes to pay these rents. This
is another step in aligning the NHS with
commercial and market practices. &nbsp;</p>
<p>Despite the commercial rents the PropCo is taking
from the funding given to NHS bodies by the government to provide frontline
services, its Annual Report and Accounts show it is making a loss. Its auditors
report that:&nbsp;‘the substantial
shortfall between the costs required to provide the company’s services and the
income derived through rental is funded through a recharge to NHS England and
the Clinical Commissioning Groups. This recharge is&nbsp;in the nature of
a&nbsp;grant and does not have any conditions attached to it.’&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>It is a private company whose debts are covered by
the Treasury to keep it solvent whilst its charges undermine the solvency of
its tenants.&nbsp;</p>
<h2>Project Phoenix: private organisations rising from the ashes of public
service&nbsp;</h2>
<p>The latest private sector creation to be involved
with this complex web of sales and public-private partnerships is Project
Phoenix. Project Phoenix is the creation of six major regional public/private
property deals which could be in place by June 2019. The procurement process is
due to start shortly. The Project is described as a venture to attract
companies to ‘unlock’ capital funding for the NHS. The companies formed by
these six property deals will be known as Regional Health Infrastructure
Companies (RHICs). Just like PFI, these infrastructure projects will be ‘off
the balance sheet’ and will sell publicly owned property and replace it with
private rented. They are described as the “delivery route” for trusts and
Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships to transform their estate.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Project Phoenix is the realisation of Sir Robert
Naylor’s plan in his review of NHS property. He calculated that up to
£5.7billion of funds could be ‘accessed’. The RHICs will increase the number of
private subsidiary companies already proliferating in the NHS as they will be
set up to run the development projects necessary to create the new privatised
NHS estate.&nbsp;</p>
<h2>Bring it back into public hands&nbsp;&nbsp;</h2>
<p>The response from the Department of Health and
Social Care to the petitioner who achieved the debate on privatisation which
was held in Westminster Hall on 23 April said,&nbsp;“the private sector has always played a vital supporting role in the
NHS, for example in building hospitals, in providing facilities management
services”. But the pretence that this commercial property and private
company development is a normal part of public service delivery must not be
allowed to carry on if we are to retain an NHS which is fit for purpose.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Private companies can be sold, as the NAO warned
about NHS Property Services Ltd and UCLH have demonstrated with their sale of
their radio-imaging company. Unless something is done, unless this process is
halted, there will be a proliferation of sales and developments of land, and
transfers of subsidiary companies into private hands. The need to restore the
NHS to public service becomes ever more urgent.</p><p><em>This article is cross-posted with kind permission from&nbsp;<a href="http://publicmatters.org.uk/">Public Matters</a>.</em></p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/deborah-harrington/going-going-gone-great-hospital-selloff">Going, going, gone - the great hospital sell-off?</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/caroline-molloy/jeremy-hunt-considers-banning-patients-from-walking-up-to-aes">Jeremy Hunt considers banning patients from walking up to A&amp;Es</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/caroline-molloy/are-cash-strapped-hospitals-walking-into-trap-that-could-cost-nhs-its-family-">Are cash-strapped hospitals walking into a trap that could cost the NHS its family silver?</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by NC 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSukourNHSJessica OrmerodWed, 30 May 2018 11:33:51 +0000Jessica Ormerod118140 at https://www.opendemocracy.netFacing legal challenge, Tories hint about scrapping some NHS reforms – but remain wedded to privatising 'solutions'https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/tommy-greene/facing-legal-challenge-tories-hint-about-scrapping-some-nhs-reforms-but-remain-w
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>The effects of the 2012 Health and Social Care Act are now too disastrous to ignore. But Jeremy Hunt’s shift is of rhetoric, not of substance - .and his new “ACO” plans are so dangerous, campaigners this week challenged them in the High Court.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/sue allyson.PNG" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/sue allyson.PNG" alt="" title="" width="460" height="282" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'></span></span><em>Image: Campaigners in front of the High Court this week as their Judicial Review opened. Credit: Daniel Lucas/Dpict Media</em></p><p>The leader of the Opposition’s opening gambit in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGFMnZnpTu0&amp;t=318s">PMQs</a> this
week was to put Theresa May on the spot over how much of NHS services are currently being outsourced to the private sector. Rather predictably, she had
no answer of substance to this question.</p><p>Most people are aware by now that the NHS is at breaking
point. But what much of the public are still in the dark about is exactly <em>how</em> this crisis is happening or being
navigated.</p>
<p>Anyone wanting to find out would be well-advised to take a
look at incoming Accountable Care Organisations, which threaten to usher in an
‘Americanisation’ of services and possibly the largest vehicle for future
privatisation in the NHS’s history. This week, the High Court heard about the
impending introduction of these ACOs from a <a href="https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/jr4nhs-round3/">team of 4 senior health
professionals</a> (<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/08/stephen-hawking-lawsuit-foiling-jeremy-hunt-nhs-shake-up">previously
5</a>, until the death of the late Professor Stephen Hawking in March). This
judicial review looks to ensure that a shake-up as large as this does not occur
without the proper public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny such a
significant restructuring of public healthcare should entail. </p>
<p>Along with legislative efforts to reinstate statutory
responsibility for the health of people across England – which was essentially
torn away by Andrew Lansley <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/7/contents/enacted">in 2012</a>
- the case forms part of a several-year-long campaign to restore public
healthcare (as set out in the NHS’s founding charter) as well as to uncover
what transatlantic interests <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/stewart-player/accountable-care-american-import-thats-last-thing-englands-nhs-needs">have
planned</a> for it.</p>
<p><strong>What are ACOs? And why are they such
cause for concern?</strong></p>
<p>Already piloted quietly across <a href="https://www.bigissuenorth.com/news/2018/04/nhs-plans-court/">10 areas in
England</a>, Accountable Care Organisations boil down to a large-scale
reorganisation and ‘integration’ of care providers. In theory, ACOs could be
owned by NHS hospitals or GPs. But there may be nothing in place to stop them
from being controlled by large insurance companies, finance and property firms
who could eventually take them over and run them purely for profit. </p>
<p>Through these new integrated care systems, the government
looks to pool health and social care budgets from NHS England, Clinical
Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and General Practice with local authority budgets
into contracts to be awarded on a per capita basis. This means that ACOs could
be a financial “Special Purpose Vehicle”, a public body or a private company.
The longer-term upshot may be that CCGs disappear altogether and ACOs take on
commissioning responsibilities, presenting them with the power to alter
resources and patient composition.</p>
<p>One central concern that has been raised relates to the way
ACOs appear to blur the lines between the definition of care that’s ‘free at
point of use’, care that’s charged at point of use and care that’s sold off
privately. This obviously goes straight to the heart of the NHS’s founding
principle of universal public healthcare provision. It is also a partial
carry-over from NHS England chief Simon Stevens’ nebulous <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/shibley-rahman/nhs-five-year-forward-view-wishlist-for-privatisers">promise</a>
to “dissolve the classic divide[s]” of healthcare in his 2014 <a href="https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/5yfv-web.pdf">Five
Year Forward View</a>, which at the same time pledged to reduce tens of
billions in expenditure before 2021.</p>
<p>During the last two years, some of the <a href="http://www.nhsforsale.info/database/market-failures/stps-and-privatisation.html">largest
ever contracts</a> for NHS services have emerged. One of the first of these
super contracts was in Dudley, where financial details of the 15-year
Multispecialty Community Provider (MCP) agreement are not known. Then, in April
2017, a <a href="https://www.hsj.co.uk/hsj-local/commissioners/nhs-north-manchester-ccg/biggest-ever-nhs-tender-launched-as-6bn-contract-put-on-market/7017156.article?blocktitle=Most-popular&amp;contentID=-1">Manchester
commissioning group</a> announced the largest ever tender for NHS services, in
a contract worth £6 billion, for a provider of all out-of-hospital care in an
area serving around 600,000 patients. Last year was also the advent of the <a href="http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/home/finance-and-practice-life-news/first-voluntary-contracts-awarded-to-gps-and-trusts/20035000.article">first
“voluntary” contracts</a> to be awarded to GPs and Trusts now operating as
tender-based, unofficially pro-profit businesses.</p>
<p>In February this year, a High Court judge temporarily <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-virgin-care-outsourcing-childrens-health-contract-private-company-judge-court-a8221811.html">blocked</a>
Lancashire County Council’s attempt to outsource a £104 million childcare
contract to Virgin. This ruling came only weeks after NHS bodies were forced to
make an <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-richard-branson-virgin-care-legal-settlement-tendering-contract-a8080961.html">undisclosed
settlement</a> to the health branch of Richard Branson’s conglomerate over <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/297e7714-089f-11e7-97d1-5e720a26771b">its loss</a>
of a £82 million contract to provide children’s health services across Surrey. </p>
<p>ACOs could open the door to a great deal more private US
equity firms looking to prise open the <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/caroline-molloy/it-may-not-look-like-it-but-jeremy-hunt-does-have-plan-for-nhs-0">£120
billion oyster</a> of UK healthcare. Fears of backdoor privatisation have been
compounded by indications from an increasingly <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/31/embattled-theresa-may-vows-steer-britain-though-brexit-beyond/">embattled</a>
May, who is desperately <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/nhs-theresa-mays-dowry-gift-to-donald-trump">scrambling
to secure</a> a future trade deal with the US post-Brexit. </p>
<p><strong>Accountable Care?</strong></p>
<p>Despite talk of unification, “seamless” integration and the
government’s persistent use of ‘local’ areas and populations in its language
around ACOs, they will almost certainly fragment, outsource and create an
increasingly complex commercial model of healthcare - instead of an open, transparent,
directly-accountable model of provision. ‘Accountable care’ couldn’t be any
more of a misnomer.</p>
<p>ACOs’ taxonomy of “local health systems”, each with their
own geographic “footprints”, was inherited from the division of local
healthcare in England under <a href="https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/articles/big-election-questions-stps">Sustainability
and Transformation Plans</a> (STPs), Stevens’ last grand solution to plug a £22
billion annual funding gap before this latest move. A core problem with STPs
was its <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/colin-leys/sustainability-and-transformation-plans-kill-or-cure-for-nhs">delegation
of responsibilities</a> to these new ‘localities’, with no clear statutory
rules or external regulation governing the care provision process. This
question is one that has not become any clearer during the introduction of
ACOs, for all the government’s talk of openness and liability.</p>
<p>Jeremy Hunt’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/11/jeremy-hunt-to-unveil-plans-for-digital-led-nhs-treatment-by-2018">visions</a>
of a <a href="https://twitter.com/jeremy_hunt/status/973230153060012033?lang=en">tech
panacea</a> have also been part of the push towards ACOs, as well as to square
various circles left by Stevens’ glib tracts. Meanwhile, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/13/nhs-computer-systems-insufficient-funding">underfunding</a>
of basic <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/12/nhs-hit-major-cyber-attack-hackers-demanding-ransom/">IT
facilities</a> in hospitals has continued – as was made all too clear in last
year’s <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41753022">WannaCry</a>
ransomware attacks. </p>
<p>Government officials <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-hunt-health-department-nhs-legal-action-americanise-privatisation-customers-id-pay-a8033986.html">maintain</a>
that ACOs are not a move towards US-style privatisation, accusing campaigners
of generating “pernicious falsehoods” and “irresponsible” alarmism, while
insisting the plans “are simply about making care more joined-up between
different health and care organisations”. The pro-market King’s Fund has <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2018/02/accountable-care-doesn-t-mean-we-ll-end-us-style-privatised-health">reiterated</a>
this message, arguing that identifications with US healthcare are mistaken and
that the NHS needs more integrated care to survive. </p>
<p>But, as public health expert&nbsp;<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allyson_Pollock">Allyson Pollock</a> has
pointed out, commercial contracting and subcontracting in the NHS is already
happening on a scale and at a duration never considered by the 2012 Health and
Social Care Act. This was one of a number of crucial concerns which either
weren’t raised or were stamped out during the legislation’s passage through
parliament. It’s little surprise, then, that government and pro-market bodies
are trying to keep campaigners quiet about ACOs (<a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-14778406">as they did</a> around the
time of Lansley’s reforms) especially given these bodies’ cosy ties with US
private health.</p>
<p>Although May deflected Corbyn’s outsourcing question at this
week’s PMQs, Allyson Pollock argues that only 36% of healthcare contracts were
won by NHS providers in the financial year 2016-17, compared to 60% in 2014-15.
And we also know private providers won £3.1 billion of new contracts in
2016-17, 43% of total advertised value. </p>
<p>If anything, ACOs form part of a discursive shift rather
than a shift from policy’s direction of travel after the <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31145600">effects</a> of the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/31/health-reform-tories-biggest-mistake-parliament-nhs-stephen-dorrell-mp">disastrous</a>
2012 Act became too obvious to ignore – and then needed to be ‘tidied up’. This
shift signalled a move away from talk of breaking up public healthcare
(remember, Lansley’s <a href="https://www.economist.com/britain/2014/03/29/health-reform-in-a-cold-climate">top-down
reforms</a> were a “reorganisation so big you can see it from outer space”)
towards a language of “collaboration” into which the term “integration” fits
neatly. </p>
<p>The truth is there is no real or meaningful local
accountability with ACOs: no one knows what will happen if private contractors
walk away from their contracts, or if they choose to close services and sell
off buildings in search of more lucrative ventures, as has been happening
recently with <a href="https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/18/royal-free-secretly-planning-to-develop-100-year-old-hospital-into-luxury-flats?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&amp;__twitter_impression=true">nursing
home closures</a>. </p>
<p><strong>The JR4NHS case and NHS
re-instatement</strong></p>
<p>Sometimes the conversation around the protection and the
future of the NHS can seem hopelessly bleak. But, although the task can appear
insurmountable, there are groups working to combat the corporate divvy-up of UK
public healthcare. And they require public support now more than ever before.</p>
<p>This judicial review action, for instance, has already
prevented swathes of ACOs from being rubber-stamped until the case and
consultation reaches a conclusion – they had initially been scheduled to come
into effect this April. </p>
<p>The case can only go so far, though, due to its
necessarily limited remit. Beyond other standalone legal
battles like it, what has so far been stripped away can only be rehabilitated
and restored by an Act of Parliament – which is why it is essential to support
the Private Members’ Bill on 11th July to reclaim and begin to
re-instate the NHS. </p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/stewart-player/accountable-care-american-import-thats-last-thing-englands-nhs-needs">&#039;Accountable Care&#039; - the American import that&#039;s the last thing England&#039;s NHS needs</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/allyson-pollock/why-next-labour-manifesto-must-pledge-to-legislate-to-reinstate-nhs">Why the next Labour Manifesto must pledge to legislate to reinstate the NHS</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/john-lister/if-our-government-won-t-act-to-save-our-nhs-then-we-must">If our government won’t act to save our NHS this winter, this is what we must do</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/stewart-player/taking-politics-out-of-nhs-or-constructing-elitist-consensus">Taking politics out of the NHS? Or constructing an elitist ‘consensus’?</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by NC 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSukourNHSTommy GreeneFri, 25 May 2018 15:01:04 +0000Tommy Greene118069 at https://www.opendemocracy.netWe must protect the lives of people with learning disabilityhttps://www.opendemocracy.net/shinealight/deborah-coles/inquest-leder-report-learning-disability
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>Time and time again, grieving families are left to fight for accountability and expose systemic failings in the care of learning disabled people.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none caption-xlarge'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/536680/connor_bus2_1.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/536680/connor_bus2_1.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="316" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload caption-xlarge imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Bus, by Connor Sparrowhawk (#JusticeforLB)</span></span></span></p><p>INQUEST works with an increasing number of families&nbsp;impacted by learning disability deaths. Central to our work is the need to amplify the&nbsp;concerns of families who feel let down&nbsp;by the social care&nbsp;system; to help&nbsp;them establish the truth behind&nbsp;a death; secure justice on behalf of their deceased relative; and prevent future deaths.&nbsp;</p><p>In many cases the&nbsp;circumstances surrounding a death were entirely&nbsp;preventable, had families’ voices and concerns been&nbsp;listened to&nbsp;by those responsible for their relative’s care. The cases of&nbsp;<a href="https://opendemocracy.net/shinealight/shinealight/kate-dolan/small-details-my-sister-life-cut-short">Josanne Wadsworth</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.inquest.org.uk/richard-handley-conclusion">Richard Handley</a>, <a href="https://www.inquest.org.uk/oliver-mcgowan-conclusion">Oliver McGowan</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.inquest.org.uk/danny-tozer-conclusion">Daniel Tozer</a>&nbsp;and <a href="https://opendemocracy.net/shinealight/shinealight/sara-ryan-clare-sambrook/connor-sparrowhawk-justiceforLB">Connor Sparrowhawk</a>— all of whom&nbsp;had a range of complex needs and disabilities — present a picture of missed opportunities and chaotic care that exacerbated their symptoms prior to their death.&nbsp;</p><p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_left caption-medium'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/536680/DANIEL_TOZER.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_medium/wysiwyg_imageupload/536680/DANIEL_TOZER.jpg" alt="" title="" width="240" height="297" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload caption-medium imagecache imagecache-article_medium" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Daniel Tozer</span></span></span></p><p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_left caption-medium'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/536680/JOSANNE3.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_medium/wysiwyg_imageupload/536680/JOSANNE3.jpg" alt="" title="" width="240" height="300" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload caption-medium imagecache imagecache-article_medium" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Josanne Wadsworth at 15</span></span></span></p><p><span>In the words of Daniel Tozer’s parents, “Danny’s senseless death has devastated his family and friends” and deprived them of the opportunity&nbsp;to spend a life with someone who “lit up our lives”.</span></p><p><a href="https://opendemocracy.net/shinealight/shinealight/kate-dolan/small-details-my-sister-life-cut-short">Kate Dolan</a> has&nbsp;written about the death of her sister of Josanne Wadsworth who had severe learning disabilities and epilepsy. Josanne died aged 31 in hospital in January 2017. <a href="https://opendemocracy.net/shinealight/shinealight/kate-dolan/small-details-my-sister-life-cut-short">In her blog</a>, Kate describes her relief at the hospital’s frank acknowledgement of the failings surrounding Josanne’s death. Sadly, this open approach on behalf of the hospital is not a common feature in most cases.&nbsp;</p><p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_left caption-medium'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/536680/Richard_Handley-portrait_0.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_medium/wysiwyg_imageupload/536680/Richard_Handley-portrait_0.jpg" alt="" title="" width="240" height="304" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload caption-medium imagecache imagecache-article_medium" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Richard Handley</span></span></span><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_left caption-medium'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/536680/Oliver-McGowan-350.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_medium/wysiwyg_imageupload/536680/Oliver-McGowan-350.jpg" alt="" title="" width="240" height="254" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload caption-medium imagecache imagecache-article_medium" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Oliver McGowan</span></span></span><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_left caption-medium'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/536680/connorsparrowhawk_crop_1.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_medium/wysiwyg_imageupload/536680/connorsparrowhawk_crop_1.jpg" alt="" title="" width="240" height="293" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload caption-medium imagecache imagecache-article_medium" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Connor Sparrowhawk</span></span></span>Many families are confronted with a culture of denial and defensiveness, where public bodies are more concerned with reputational management. Further still, the majority of learning disability deaths are not independently investigated, and many are not followed by an inquest. In fact, it is often only through families dogged persistence that failings are brought to light.&nbsp;</p><p>Behind a shadow of injustice are the many untold stories of those who have died in care, and an institutional resistance to transparency or learning. This means many more lives are put at risk due to the continuation of unsafe practices. To combat this, INQUEST has long campaigned for a national oversight mechanism to collate, analyse and monitor learning arising from the deaths of learning disabled people.&nbsp;</p><p>We have also called for unexpected and unnatural learning disability deaths to be investigated by an independent body. This would put an end to the current practice of NHS Trusts, which have overall responsibility for the care of those with learning disability, investigating themselves.</p><p><span>Premature deaths precipitated by unacceptable standards of care has prompted mounting concerns, with the mother of 18-year-old Connor Sparrowhawk, Sara Ryan,&nbsp;</span><a href="https://www.inquest.org.uk/inquest-responds-leder-report">describing</a><span>&nbsp;the “label of learning disability” as synonymous with “a diagnosis of a life limiting illness.” Further still, many families are aggrieved to see countless reports referring to dangerous policies and practices, which are not acted upon.</span></p><p>The recently published&nbsp;<a href="https://www.hqip.org.uk/resource/the-learning-disabilities-mortality-review-annual-report-2017/#.Wvq5G2gvyUm">LeDeR report</a>&nbsp;of learning disability deaths, commissioned by NHS England,&nbsp;has flagged instances of abuse, delays or gaps in treatment in 1 of the 8 cases examined. </p><p>What is particularly&nbsp;worrying is that these findings offer a partial account of the systemic problems which plague the care sector. Only 103 out of 1,311 learning disabilities deaths were reviewed by the University of Bristol Learning Disabilities Mortality Review&nbsp;team&nbsp;due to inadequate resources committed by&nbsp;NHS England.</p><p><span class="mag-quote-right">Many families are confronted with a culture of denial and defensiveness.</span>There are patterns of poor care, neglect and abuse of some of the most vulnerable groups in society. This results in poorer health outcomes and shorter life expectancy of those with a learning disability. Evidence from the LeDeR review&nbsp;shows that on average&nbsp;men with learning disabilities die 23 years younger than their non-disabled peers, while&nbsp;women die 29 years younger.&nbsp;</p><p>Learning disabled people are entitled to the same rights and protections that others enjoy. However too often inquests and investigation reveal a systematic disregard for their lives. There needs to be a more focused approach on providing the best care and treatment to those with complex needs and disabilities. This can only happen if policymakers and medical professionals extract lessons from previous deaths and force a cultural change that recognises the rights of the 1.5 million people with a learning disability in the UK.&nbsp;</p><hr /><p>For more information on learning disability deaths you can follows blogs by&nbsp;<a href="https://mydaftlife.com/">Sara Ryan</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="http://www.georgejulian.co.uk/blog/">George Julian</a>. If you would like to support INQUEST’s work, please donate to our Family Participation Officer Ayesha’s&nbsp;<a class="OWAAutoLink" href="https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/ayesha-carmouche1">fundraising page</a>.&nbsp;Ayesha is running a half marathon to raise money to expand INQUEST’s advocacy work with families impacted by a state-related death.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/shinealight/kate-dolan/my-sister-life-cut-short">The significance of small details. My sister’s life cut short</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/shinealight/sara-ryan/connor-sparrowhawk-southern-health-fined-2m">&#039;We’ve done you proud&#039; — Families speak after NHS Trust fined £2million over patient deaths</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/shinealight/imogen-tyler/connor-sparrowhawk-erosion-of-accountability-in-nhs">Connor Sparrowhawk: the erosion of accountability in the NHS</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/shinealight/shinealight/sara-ryan-clare-sambrook/connor-sparrowhawk-justiceforLB">Connor Sparrowhawk: How one boy’s death in NHS care inspired a movement for justice</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/shinealight/tom-ryan/since-my-brother-s-preventable-death">Since my brother’s preventable death . . .</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/shinealight/deborah-coles-ayesha-carmouche/case-for-independent-investigation-of-deaths-in-mental-he">The case for independent investigation of deaths in mental health institutions</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/shinealight/sara-ryan/ministry-of-justice-says-you-don-t-need-lawyer-at-inquest-trust-state">Ministry of Justice says you don’t need a lawyer at an Inquest. Trust the State</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by NC 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ShinealightShineALightourNHSDeborah ColesWed, 23 May 2018 06:50:00 +0000Deborah Coles117921 at https://www.opendemocracy.netThe significance of small details. My sister’s life cut shorthttps://www.opendemocracy.net/shinealight/kate-dolan/my-sister-life-cut-short
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>Like so many people who have learning disabilities Josanne Wadsworth died an early and preventable death.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none caption-xlarge'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/536680/JOSANNE.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title="Josanne, 29 years old, in 2015, at St Elizabeth&#039;s Centre in Hertfordshire"><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/536680/JOSANNE.jpg" alt="" title="Josanne, 29 years old, in 2015, at St Elizabeth&#039;s Centre in Hertfordshire" width="460" height="344" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload caption-xlarge imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Josanne, aged 29, embracing life at St Elizabeth's Centre in Hertfordshire, 2015</span></span></span></p><p>Sometimes it’s the little things that make the biggest difference. I once came back from dropping my child at playgroup to find that I couldn’t get into my house. I put the key in the lock but when I tried to turn it it wouldn’t move. Jammed. Stuck. Locked out. After enlisting the help of a locksmith, it transpired that a tiny millimetre length of metal had broken off the mechanism. The littlest thing stopped the whole thing from working. A millimetre away from getting into my house, yet wholly locked out.</p><p>Little things can be so important. Take, for example, the&nbsp;<a href="https://littlebluecup.org/category/about-us/">Little Blue Cup</a>&nbsp;campaign launched in recent months. A 13 year old autistic boy with severe learning disabilities had used a blue sippy cup since he was two, and wouldn’t drink from anything else. His father managed to find a replacement from a friend when the first cup wore out. But as this second cup began deteriorating and efforts to get him to drink from other cups - however similar - failed, they grew increasingly concerned. Without that blue sippy cup he would become dehydrated and had already spent time in hospital.&nbsp;</p><p>The cup was discontinued, so in a desperate plea online via Twitter, his dad asked if anyone could find and send them these little blue cups. The response was unexpected and truly heart-warming: from&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37988508">viral re-tweets to offers of cups</a>, to the company themselves&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-38141319">successfully finding</a>&nbsp;the old mould and producing a lifetime’s supply of blue sippy cups for him!&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>I like this story, not only for its happy ending, but for the success of a parent fighting for their child, understanding him totally, knowing what’s needed and communicating it successfully to people who listen and respond. Little things, perhaps, making a big difference.</p><p class="mag-quote-right">Knowing and being known was important to Josanne.</p><p>Having grown up with my sister, Josanne, who had severe learning disabilities, I can appreciate the fine line between things being alright and things causing distress. Little things made a big difference. Josanne loved the little details. She used to like to know where people were, and would run through the members of the family in turn saying where they should be and what they would be doing. Knowing and being known was important to her. Knowing the little things formed the depth of her relationship with others and enabled the key to turn in the lock.</p><p>Josanne had severe learning disabilities and intractable epilepsy from infancy. She had been admitted to hospital several times in the past when she experienced clusters of seizures that wouldn’t stop. Sadly her time in hospital was often extended because she didn’t get the medications she needed at the correct times, or she wasn’t monitored closely enough, and she deteriorated enough to require intensive care.&nbsp;</p><p>One of these admissions resulted in paralysis, another in transfer to the leading London neurological hospital. It was during the latter crisis that she was prescribed a newly-licensed drug, which wonderfully caused a termination in seizures for the last two years of her life, and we saw her flourish.</p><p>Josanne had a good quality of life, despite her paralysis and learning disabilities. She had moved to St Elizabeth’s Centre in Hertfordshire aged 19, and had lived there happily for 12 years. She was a character and always secured the affections of staff and carers, even if they had heard her loud rendition of “Happy Birthday” for the umpteenth time that day (and it probably wasn’t anybody’s birthday)! There is a nursing unit on site, and specialist epilepsy nurses cared brilliantly for her. Unless she needed treatment that she could only get in hospital, she got all the care she needed there.&nbsp;</p><p>So when Josanne needed to go to hospital in January 2017 for a routine PEG replacement procedure, having removed her old one too many times, we weren’t particularly worried that she would suffer further setbacks; she wasn’t going into hospital ill, she was going in to prevent future illness. The feeding tube known as a PEG (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy)&nbsp;was the means of securing her essential medication and nutrition intake. A small thing, perhaps, but it made all the difference.</p><p>Josanne’s history showed that if she didn’t get her medication reliably she was likely to experience seizures and compounding complications if she entered status epilepsy (where epileptic fits follow one another without recovery of consciousness between), but the procedure was repeatedly delayed, which meant she wasn’t getting her essential medications. My Mum and St Elizabeth’s staff raised concerns, emphasising the severity of potential outcomes if the procedure didn’t happen imminently. But the hospital’s realisation came too late. Josanne had missed too many doses of medication, started having seizures, and quickly became too ill to have the procedure. Her seizures worsened in frequency and severity, and, as those who knew her best had warned, she developed aspiration pneumonia, and tragically died. She was 31.</p><p>The coroner concluded at an inquest held in November 2017 that Josanne died of natural causes, contributed to by neglect, with the hospital demonstrating serious failings in her care.</p><p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_left caption-medium'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/536680/JOSANNE2.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/536680/JOSANNE2.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="588" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload caption-medium imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>At 15 Josanne lived at home and attended a special school in Cambridge.</span></span></span></p><p>The fact it was so clear cut is a consolation. The hospital didn’t try to hide their failings or apportion blame elsewhere, but instead produced a 22-page Serious Incident Report that gave appalling detail to the circumstances surrounding Josanne’s death. We realise this is rarely the case, and many families supported by INQUEST are not so fortunate and have far bigger battles in their quest for justice.&nbsp;</p><p>There are many factors I could talk about - the high rate of mortality amongst learning disabled patients, poor understanding of and adherence to the Mental Capacity Act, communication issues between those who know the patient best and the medical staff, or, more positively, the difference it makes when an organisation is willing to admit mistakes and make changes to prevent similar tragedies occurring. But these are by no means little things, and deserve a greater depth of discussion than I can give here.</p><p>Perhaps the littlest thing that could have made the biggest difference was in the process of flagging vulnerable patients on admission. When Josanne was admitted to hospital the Learning Disabilities flag on the patient information system wasn’t activated. Normally it would be automatic, but, despite having lived in Hertfordshire for 12 years and having a Hertfordshire GP, Josanne was not registered on the Local Authority’s patient list as having Learning Disabilities because Josanne was originally from Cambridgeshire and her previous hospital admissions had been to the nearby hospital in Essex.</p><p><span class="mag-quote-right">A little thing. Without it the door to essential medical care didn’t open.</span>Why didn’t a Learning Disability flag get passed from one county to the next? Why didn’t a GP’s patient information system link into the hospital’s patient information system? And, given the severity of Josanne’s learning disability, why didn’t it occur to staff to check the flag had been activated? This would have triggered an alert to the specialist Learning Disabilities Nurse, who has greater understanding of the potential issues faced by vulnerable patients and can advocate for them. But the Learning Disabilities Nurse wasn’t even aware that Josanne was in hospital until 13 days into her stay, by which time it was too late.&nbsp;</p><p>It may just have taken a little thing, but without it the mechanism didn’t work properly, the door to essential medical care didn’t open. Josanne was instead locked in a waiting room of neglect until she died.</p><p>Whilst the hospital have frankly examined their failings and have put things in place to prevent it happening again, my concern is that other hospitals could easily make the same mistakes if learning from this incident isn’t shared. If little things like Learning Disabilities flags aren’t activated somewhere else another time, then this could happen again.&nbsp;</p><p>The wonderful story of the Little Blue Cup continues. Requests for little things that make a big difference to learning disabled people’s lives are now shared on a website and items are united with those who need them. How wonderful it would be if little needs in bigger scenarios could also be met! If healthcare professionals could make seemingly small changes to how they treat and assess vulnerable patients, it could make the biggest difference and unlock the door to saving many lives.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><hr /><p><a href="https://www.inquest.org.uk/our-services">The charity INQUEST</a>&nbsp;provides free and independent advice to bereaved people following a death in state care or detention in England and Wales. This piece, edited by Ayesha Carmouche, is the first in a series of collaborations between families, INQUEST and <a href="https://opendemocracy.net/shinealight">Shine A Light</a>.</p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/shinealight/deborah-coles/inquest-leder-report-learning-disability">We must protect the lives of people with learning disability</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/shinealight/sara-ryan/connor-sparrowhawk-southern-health-fined-2m">&#039;We’ve done you proud&#039; — Families speak after NHS Trust fined £2million over patient deaths</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/shinealight/imogen-tyler/connor-sparrowhawk-erosion-of-accountability-in-nhs">Connor Sparrowhawk: the erosion of accountability in the NHS</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/shinealight/shinealight/sara-ryan-clare-sambrook/connor-sparrowhawk-justiceforLB">Connor Sparrowhawk: How one boy’s death in NHS care inspired a movement for justice</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/shinealight/tom-ryan/since-my-brother-s-preventable-death">Since my brother’s preventable death . . .</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by NC 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ShinealightShineALightourNHSKate DolanWed, 23 May 2018 06:50:00 +0000Kate Dolan117795 at https://www.opendemocracy.netNHS data-sharing U-turn is welcome – but more to do to scrap the ‘hostile environment’https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/peter-pannier/data-sharing-u-turn-is-welcome-but-more-to-do-to-scrap-hostile-environment-in-n
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>Recent attention to the Windrush scandal has focused attention on the many ways migrants are deterred from accessing healthcare. This Saturday, join NHS workers protesting that they are not border guards.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/nursenotaborderguard.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/nursenotaborderguard.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="465" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'></span></span><em>Image: Medact</em></p><p>The government has this week announced it will be <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/09/government-to-stop-forcing-nhs-to-share-patients-data-with-home-office">suspending
“with immediate effect”</a> the controversial memorandum of understanding (MOU)
under which NHS Digital<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/24/nhs-hands-over-patient-records-to-home-office-for-immigration-crackdown" target="_blank">&nbsp;shared NHS patients’
details with the Home Office</a>.</p>
<p>It’s a significant victory for the<a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/stopsharing?source=feed_text" target="_blank"> #StopSharing</a> campaign by Doctors
of the World, the National AIDs Trust, and a host of others - including Docs
Not Cops. Campaigners have been insisting that patients should not fear
immigration enforcement when seeking NHS treatment. The policy – part of the ‘hostile
environment’ - has stirred considerable controversy, with a legal challenge
from <a href="https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stopnhsdatasharing/" target="_blank">Migrants’ Rights Network legal
challenge</a> due to be heard next month. MPs on the Commons Health Committee
also voiced considerable concern after hearing a range of powerful testimony –
including from Voices of Domestic Workers, who highlighted a case of a domestic
worker who had&nbsp;<a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/domestic-worker-died-too-frightened-11864052" target="_blank">died of pneumonia 'too frightened'
to access healthcare</a>.</p>
<p>While suspension of this damaging data-sharing provides a rare moment to
celebrate, and appreciate the impact campaigning can have, there are caveats
and a good deal of context to bear in mind. Firstly, it is essential to
emphasise that - thanks to regulations introduced through secondary legislation
by Jeremy Hunt in October 2017 - patients will <em>still</em> be required to prove immigration status to&nbsp;access&nbsp;most hospital care. Such
a requirement stops people receiving treatment, criminalises patients and makes
healthcare workers complicit in racist policy. Further, the NHS is but one
arena in which the government’s hostile environment operates - banks will still
freeze your account if you're unlucky enough to end up on a Home Office wanted
list, and Landlords are still required to check your passport if you're renting
from them. The Prevent duty still places students – and patients – under
suspicion, as highlighted by the Joint Council for the Welfare of
Immigrants,&nbsp;<a href="http://twitter.com/nobankborders" target="_blank">No Borders In Banks</a>, and&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/UnisNotBorders" target="_blank">Unis Not Borders</a>&nbsp;amongst others.</p>
<p>Another caveat is that the announcement on NHS data sharing came during
a debate on the Data Protection Bill – however during the wider debate on the bill, an amendment which would have definitively scrapped the exemption that allows data protection
rules to be broken for immigration purposes was defeated by 18 votes. And the
suspension was also announced with a suggestion that in future the Home Office
would still be “able to use the data-sharing mechanism to trace people who are
being considered for deportation from Britain because they have committed a
serious crime”. As Liberty and the National Aids Trust have already noted, the
definition of “serious crime” here is vague to say the least.</p>
<p>Corey Stoughton, advocacy director at Liberty said: “The government now
admits it has been needlessly exploiting NHS patient data on a mass scale for
minor immigration enforcement matters. They have undermined the confidentiality
and trust at the heart of our healthcare system in the name of pursuing their
hostile environment. We welcome the agreement to overhaul its practices and immediately
curtail some data-sharing – but its language is worryingly vague. We need a
cast-iron commitment that people will no longer have to fear immigration
enforcement when seeking urgent medical care.”</p>
<p>Any discussion of crime must acknowledge that those who are not white
are more likely to be stopped, detained, prosecuted, and receive harsher
sentences. Immediately it is clear that not everyone will be safe from data
sharing - and instead of protecting people, and ensuring no-one is deterred
from seeking treatment, the discussion is once again dragged toward
distinctions between ‘good migrants’ and ‘bad migrants’, ‘deserving’ and
‘undeserving’ people.</p>
<p>As with much of the recent (and long overdue) media and political attention
to the government’s ‘hostile environment’, people who can be deemed 'illegal'
are once again dehumanised even by politicians opposing government policy.
Labour’s&nbsp;Shadow
Secretary of State for International Trade, and for Climate Change,&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/daily_politics/status/990918048633700352" target="_blank">Barry Gardiner recently told the BBC’s
Daily Politics</a>&nbsp;"we have to make sure that those people who
are in this country illegally are removed from this country... I'm very happy
to see a target of the number of those people that we want to remove". When the BBC’s Nick
Robinson asked the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVKs23tCCKU" target="_blank">Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry
on the Marr Show</a>&nbsp;“Are you saying that you don’t want to
see checks when people arrive in hospital for treatment that might cost tens of
thousands of pounds – you don’t want to see whether they’re in fact illegal
immigrants?”,&nbsp;Emily Thornberry replied “I don’t have a problem with checks
being made”. It was disappointing that Thornberry made no attempt to query the
premise of the question (where Robinson also suggested&nbsp;illegal migrants "take" jobs
and houses from legal residents) or defend the principle that all
should be able to access healthcare as a human right. It would have been easy
for Thornberry to mention the public health risks entailed when denying people
treatment – as&nbsp;<a href="http://politics.co.uk/news/2018/04/19/hostile-environment-government-ignored-warnings-from-public" target="_blank">Public Health England have done</a>.</p>
<p>This stance must change - as Luke de Noronha argues, “There are no sharp
divisions between ‘legal migrants’ and citizens over here, working hard, paying
taxes and playing by the rules, and the ‘illegal immigrants’ over there,
sneaking around, stealing jobs and deceiving ordinary Brits. In fact, the law
changes around people;&nbsp;<em>illegality is produced</em>&nbsp;in ways which
create divisions within our families, communities and classrooms. We can only
develop a stronger critique of the UK’s cruel immigration system if&nbsp;<a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/luke-de-noronha/windrush-generation-and-illegal-immigrants-are-both-our-kin" target="_blank">we
see Windrush migrants and ‘illegal immigrants’ as kin</a>, rather than as good
and bad migrants to be isolated from one another.” No one should be made to
feel undeserving of care.</p>
<p>More positively, it is welcome that, responding to the suspension of
data-sharing, Shadow Health Secretary Jonathan Ashworth noted yesterday “Theresa May has
ignored warnings that the regulations on ID checks at hospitals are also
damaging patient care” and added that "<a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/home-office-stop-using-nhs-12508018" target="_blank">The
Government must now suspend these regulations while a full review is carried
out</a>.” </p>
<p>Having been making this case for months - indeed years - we are pleased
to hear a senior opposition politician say:</p>
<p>“This policy was yet another example of Theresa May’s heartless ‘hostile
environment’ which is clearly undermining patient care. This U-turn is a
victory for Labour MPs like Paul Williams and Luciana Berger, as well as the
Health Select Committee. But the Government needs to go further. Today’s U-turn
should only be the start. To protect the best interests of patients the
Government must end Theresa May’s hostile environment entirely.”</p>
<p>This is a welcome first step - Labour must now commit to scrap these
regulations in their entirety, as&nbsp;<a href="https://labourlist.org/2018/03/the-nhs-must-remain-free-at-the-point-of-use-and-based-on-need-not-ability-to-pay/" target="_blank">we've
argued on LabourList</a>, and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/docs-not-cops/labour-must-tackle-may-s-hostile-environment-for-migrants-in-nhs" target="_blank">ahead
of their 2017 conference on OurNHS openDemocracy</a>.</p>
<p>Of course, responsibility lies with Jeremy Hunt. That’s why this
Saturday 12th May we’re organising a twitter storm for International Nurses
Day. This year the International Council of Nurses have chosen “<a href="http://www.icn.ch/publications/2018-nurses-a-voice-to-lead-health-is-a-human-right/" target="_blank">Nurses
A Voice to Lead – Health is a Human Right</a>” as their theme. We
agree with them that "healthcare should be accessible to all". The
government’s ‘hostile environment’ policies go against this principle - making
it more and more difficult for people to access the NHS services they need. It
is now mandatory for NHS trusts to check people’s immigration status before
providing secondary care and to&nbsp;<a href="https://theconversation.com/who-has-to-pay-for-the-nhs-and-when-91344" target="_blank">charge
upfront for treatment</a>&nbsp;where people are unable to prove
their eligibility. And additionally, the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/05/annual-charge-paid-by-migrants-for-using-the-nhs-to-double" target="_blank">Immigration
Health Surcharge is set to be doubled</a>, despite pricing people out of visa
applications at the rates introduced in 2014.</p>
<p>Already these&nbsp;<a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nhs-charging-rules-doctors-nurses-government-id-checks-payments-home-office-hospitals-docs-not-cops-a8014966.html" target="_blank">policies
are leading to discrimination and racial profiling</a>, to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pregnant-and-ill-migrants-going-without-medical-care-due-to-hardline-government-immigration-policy-a8011351.html" target="_blank">people
being too scared to access the care they need</a>, and are&nbsp;<a href="http://www.gal-dem.com/docs-not-cops-new-policy-transforms-nhs-workers-border-guards" target="_blank">turning
healthcare workers into border guards</a>.</p>
<p>As health
workers we are standing up for our patients and advocating for free, universal,
non-judgemental healthcare. Ahead of International Nurses Day, a member who is
a nurse has written of seeing the <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/home-office-nhs-doctors-passport-checks-nhs-health-tourism-patients-a8345056.html">fallout
of these policies every day in A&amp;E</a>. Join Docs Not Cops in celebrating
International Nurses day this Saturday (12 May) by telling Jeremy Hunt it’s
time to end prohibitive healthcare charges for migrants, scrap ID checks in
hospitals and community care, and time to kick the ‘hostile environment’ out of
the NHS. Please tweet a selfie of you and your colleagues (ideally in uniform -
but you don’t have to identify anyone) holding a sign saying “We treat patients
not passports. I’m a Nurse not a border guard”. For more information go to:<a href="http://www.docsnotcops.co.uk/nursenotaborderguard" target="_blank">&nbsp;docsnotcops.co.uk/nursenotaborderguard</a></p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/uk/jess-potter/is-our-personal-data-fair-game-in-drive-to-create-theresa-may-s-hostile-environment-f">Is our personal data fair game in the drive to create Theresa May’s “hostile environment” for migrants?</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by NC 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSukourNHSPeter PannierFri, 11 May 2018 06:00:00 +0000Peter Pannier117807 at https://www.opendemocracy.net“Simon Jones was 24 when he died, his head crushed by the grab of a crane”https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/hannah-basson/simon-jones-was-24-when-he-died-his-head-crushed-by-grab-of-crane
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>Poor working conditions kill a worker every 11 seconds. All of these deaths are preventable – if the political will is there. An edited version of a speech given on International Workers Day.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/simon jones.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/simon jones.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="421" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'></span></span><em>Image: Simon Jones's family, pictured 3 years after his death. Credit: Michael Stephens/PA Images.</em></p><p><a href="http://www.simonjones.org.uk/campaign/">Simon Jones was 24 when he died</a>. It was 20
years ago last month.</p>
<p>Simon died,
his head crushed by the grab of a crane at Shoreham docks. He didn’t know how
to do that job. He wasn’t trained for it. But he took a job he was not prepared
for and had no experience in, because of the push from the dole office to make
him work, and the threat of his benefits being cut.</p>
<p>Worldwide,
poor working conditions <a href="http://www.hazards.org/wmd/worldoftrouble.htm">kill a worker every 11 seconds</a>.
<a href="http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm">137 people died at work in the UK in the 2016-17</a>,
and in the same year, one and half thousand fatalities arose from work-related
incidents.</p>
<p>Union health
and safety representatives make a difference in the workplace. Yet this
government is relentlessly attacking our unions. Workplaces with union
representatives and joint safety committees have half the major injury rate of
those without. Safety representatives save society up to half billion pounds a
year, by reducing time lost through illness and occupational injury. </p>
<p>An academic report looked at the construction industry
in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. It concluded: “<em><a href="https://www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/union-effect#_ftn12">the strongest relationship
with safety compliance is the presence of a safety representative</a>”.</em>
The Health and Safety Executive’s own research has reinforced these
conclusions. Other studies have shown that the better an employer consults with
reps, the more effective the control measures. </p>
<p>And yet, this
govt continues its attacks on our unions and our safety.</p>
<p>The 1974
Health and Safety at Work Act is our primary piece of legislation covering
occupational health and safety in Great Britain. With the hard work, skills,
knowledge, and watchful eye of people like our reps and of the Health and
Safety Executive, thousands and thousands of lives have been saved. </p>
<p>Not only are
this government hell bent on destroying the unions, they are attacking the
Health and Safety Executive too. <a href="http://www.hazards.org/safetypimp/buyme.htm">By 2020, the HSE budget will have been cut by half</a>.
Conservative leaders and a right-wing media, with the approval of sneering
government officials, undermine the work of the Health and Safety Executive at
every turn, citing any decision as ‘red tape’, the ‘nanny state’, and ‘health
and safety gone mad’.</p>
<p>The 40-year
social partnership between the Health &amp; Safety Executive and the TUC/unions
has been scrapped – after talks behind closed doors between the government and
lobby groups - and it’s now <em>ministers</em>
that decide who represents workers on the HSE board. </p>
<p>The need for
proper health and safety, the damage that casual labour creates, outsourcing,
the demonisation of the sick and disabled – these issues are as important as
they ever were. </p>
<h2>How outsourcing and privatisation worsen
health and safety</h2>
<p>Since the last
Workers Day, the <a href="http://press.hse.gov.uk/2017/health-care-provider-fined-for-health-and-safety-failures/">Ramsay health group who run
the Winfield private hospital in Gloucester were fined</a> for running
an insufficiently staffed and managed occupational health service putting
staff, as well as public, at risk. </p>
<p>Since last Workers
Day, Liverpool has held a <a href="http://www.unitetheunion.org/news/vigil-to-remember-liverpool-hospital-worker/">candlelit vigil for an
outsourced worker who could not afford adequate time off work to recover</a>,
following surgery to have a lung removed in the hospital where she worked. Unfair
sick pay meant she lost her home as a result.</p>
<p>Here in the
NHS in Gloucestershire, <a href="https://opendemocracy.net/ournhs/caroline-molloy/are-cash-strapped-hospitals-walking-into-trap-that-could-cost-nhs-its-family-">hundreds of staff have just
been transferred to a new private company, or ‘SubCo’</a> – transferred
whilst its owners, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Trust, were <em>still discussing</em> what Health and Safety
committee provision there would be, whilst they were still tossing ideas around
about the occupational health provision that those workers will have access to.</p>
<p>Many outsourcings
across the NHS and beyond in this last year have led to reductions of sick days
for staff. In Gloucestershire, we don’t know yet what several of the policies
of the new SubCo will be. We are still waiting to see what new starters terms
will be. Our workers in this county in the SubCo, outsourced to save money for
the bosses, face many potential sources of injury every hour of the day in the
work place. And these are the lowest paid workers in the health service. They
are fodder for feeding the bosses’ profits and for feeding the government’s
cuts. They are expendable trash, waste products, of a system that favours money
over life.</p>
<p>Worldwide,
working conditions kill a worker every 11 seconds. Every death is avoidable.
There is the knowledge, there is the technology, there just isn't the will. </p>
<p>Union
organisation is proven antidote. Remember Simon, and remember those that die at
work everywhere. And think about your friends and family and the people you
don’t know personally but greet each day as though they were your friends. Think
about their safety, their futures. An injury to one is an injury to all.</p>
<p>Simon was an
amazing young man who believed in direct action. He knew you couldn’t sit back
and wait for politicians to make the changes needed.</p>
<p>Before the
next government is sworn in, there will more deaths in the workplace. And we
can’t wait for the next government. So, for now, we must do all we can to raise
awareness of the good that unions do, the need for
proper health and safety, the damage that casual labour creates, outsourcing,
the demonisation of the employed and the non-employed sick and disabled. And
when the next election comes – you know what you have to do. Then, let’s bring
in a reversal to union legislation, repeal the vicious trade union legislation –
and let’s make the workplace a safer place for everyone</p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/opensecurity/henrik-maihack/rana-plaza-bottomup-route-to-workers%E2%80%99-safety">Rana Plaza: the bottom-up route to workers’ safety</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/uk/frances-ogrady/heartunions-why-young-workers-need-trade-unions-more-than-ever">#HeartUnions - why young workers need trade unions more than ever</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/laurie-macfarlane/precarious-workers-are-organising-trade-unions-need-to-catch-up">Precarious workers are organising - trade unions need to catch up</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/opensecurity/phil-chamberlain/building-blacklist-police-spies-and-trade-unionists">Building the blacklist: police spies and trade unionists</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/dave-smith/carillion-must-now-face-justice-for-blacklisting-trade-unionists-too">Carillion must now also face justice for blacklisting trade unionists</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by NC 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ukukourNHSHannah BassonThu, 10 May 2018 08:10:57 +0000Hannah Basson117786 at https://www.opendemocracy.netTo prevent another Alfie Evans case we must reverse cuts to public serviceshttps://www.opendemocracy.net/callum-phillips/to-prevent-another-alfie-evans-case-we-must-reverse-cuts-to-public-services
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>The right have used the case as a stick to beat the public services they supported gutted.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none caption-xlarge'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/565030/PA-36210904.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/565030/PA-36210904.jpg" alt="Alfie Evans in Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, Liverpool." title="" width="460" height="392" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload caption-xlarge imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Alfie Evans in Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, Liverpool. Image: Ropi/Zuma Press/PA Images.</span></span></span></p><p>On April 28th, 23-month-old Alfie Evans died five days after his life support machine was switched off. The entwined web of legal, medical, and ethical issues brought to light by the case has provoked fierce reactions across the globe. On both sides of the Atlantic, the libertarian right have weaponsied Evan’s death to attack the NHS and British legal system, with figures like Nigel Farage branding it “state-sponsored euthanasia”. But contrary to their claims, this tragic story is not the result of government overreach. Rather, it is indicative of the damage being wrought to public services and human lives by the shrinking of the state, a policy that the right has vociferously fought for.&nbsp;</p><div>In the US, commentators such as Liz Wheeler, a host for the ultra conservative news network OAN, have sought to link Evan’s death to the UK’s universal health care system. But even if an American hospital was willing to keep Evans on life support, it would not be able to do so indefinitely given the financial burden on his parents. Regardless, the opinion of the international medical community is that the outcome would have been the same. Impartial medical experts offering opinions, available to read in the court judgements, comprehensively assessed any likelihood of recovery and found none; MRI scans of his brain found the majority of his brain was already crippled beyond repair. They submitted that Evans would never make any developmental progress (motor skills, vision, hearing, social, or emotional) and his illness was irreversible and terminal.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Having already exhausted all their medical knowledge, experience, and options, Alder Hay Hospital continued to keep Evans alive, at no cost to the parents, supporting his failing organs, enabling him to breath, and treating recurrent infections Evans could not fend off himself. Accordingly, Alder Hay provided palliative care to Evans, which some critics have misleadingly tried to equate to euthanasia. It is at this point that a Vatican-run hospital, Bambino Gesú Hospital, and the Pope intervened. Their intentions however have been misreported. The Italian hospital offered no therapeutic benefit, no increased chance of survival. There was no last ditch option maliciously refused to the parents by a child-murdering government. The British government were not a party to any of the legal proceedings, and the constitutionally endorsed independence of the court ensures the government cannot simply dictate their adjudications. To chastise the state is to erroneously conflate the two.</div><div></div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Moved by the prayers and immense solidarity shown little Alfie Evans, I renew my appeal that the suffering of his parents may be heard and that their desire to seek new forms of treatment may be granted.</p>— Pope Francis (@Pontifex) <a href="https://twitter.com/Pontifex/status/988496588283826177?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">23 April 2018</a></blockquote><p><br />Recognising this, the courts and medical specialists at Alder Hay concluded it was in Evans’ best interests to end his suffering by switching off the life support machine keeping him alive. This was against the wishes of his parents, and certainly their opinions were taken into account. However, it is not in their best interests that the courts and doctors are charged with protecting. They are the guardians of a young man unable to communicate his own wishes. It is a wretched decision to have to take, but arguably, those we entrust with such tragedies were in agreement: it was time to let Evans’ life reach a natural conclusion.</p><div>We cannot imagine the suffering which Evans’ parents have gone through. This has been a horrifically sad story from start to finish. However, as a society we must seek to draw beneficial reforms from what has gone before, recognising where we have failed each other.</div><div class="mag-quote-right">Let Evans’ legacy be a call-to-arms to support a health service wishing to protect its citizens</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Incorrect legal advice from the Christian Legal Centre prolonged and increased the suffering of the parents and child involved. It gave them a false hope. It misled them as to the actions of the doctors and the position of the law. This cannot be forgotten. Looking forward, we must invest in legal aid access and supporting organisations like Citizens Advice, which have been stretched to breaking point by vicious budget cuts and austerity measures. Hospitals must be enabled to bring in greater specialist grief counselling facilities, to open up a passage of communication between parents and doctors. The adversarial nature of court proceedings should be avoided at all costs, it is to the benefit of neither party. Clinical Ethics Committees are notoriously poorly resourced, resulting in them fighting a battle with one arm tied behind their back. The answer to this case is most certainly not to turn towards a single-payer healthcare system (as seen in America). As former President Obama noted in his 2009 State of the Union, a medical cost induced bankruptcy occurs every 30 seconds due to a system rampantly providing unequal levels of accessibility to care.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>The answer is to double-down on our support for universal health care. As citizens touched by Evans’ story, we must come together to fund charities and research into incurable conditions. We must support political parties seeking to empower our NHS and research facilities to provide pioneering treatment and developing those miracle cures we seek. This is clearly not yet the case under our current neoliberal system. Healthcare blind to social class is irrevocably entwined to the very fabric safeguarding British communities, providing protection and care for those other countries would readily leave behind.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Let Evans’ legacy be a call-to-arms to support a health service wishing to protect its citizens, to formulating a legal system accessible by all, and to campaigning for research into conditions not seen as profitable by corporations. It is only through standing up for these notions that we can prevent the suffering of Evans and his family from being in vain.&nbsp;</div><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/5050/lara-whyte/charlie-gard-cause-celebre-us-christian-right">How Charlie Gard became a cause célèbre for the US Christian right </a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/5050/lara-whyte/the-rise-of-citizengo">&quot;They are coming for your children&quot; – the rise of CitizenGo</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-country">
<div class="field-label"> Country or region:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
UK </div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-topics">
<div class="field-label">Topics:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
Civil society </div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by NC 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSUKCivil societyCallum PhillipsWed, 09 May 2018 12:03:06 +0000Callum Phillips117767 at https://www.opendemocracy.netDon't invoke the NHS to sell a false idea of 'good nationalism'https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/caroline-molloy/dont-invoke-nhs-to-sell-false-idea-of-good-nationalism
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>This isn't 'good nationalism'. This is nationalism - as ever, in an English context - as forgetting. A response to Zoe Williams.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/2012 olympics.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/2012 olympics.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="307" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'></span></span><em>Image: London Olympic games ceremony, 2012. Credit: Julian Behal/PA Images, all rights reserved.</em></p><p>Zoe Williams <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/08/nationalism-positive-case-immigration-counter-narrative-nhs">holds up the NHS as an example of ‘good nationalism’
in today’s Guardian</a>, citing Danny Boyle’s 2012 Olympics NHS montage as an
example:</p>
<p>“Good nationalism is a certain
specific solidarity based on the things you have created together, as a nation,
and the things you aspire to create: you could call it, for short,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/jul/27/olympic-opening-ceremony">Danny Boyle nationalism</a>, and it takes in the NHS.”</p>
<p>The problem with this kind of narrative is it omits how all
English nationalism – even supposedly the ‘good’ kind – allows us all to ignore
inconvenient truths.</p>
<p>Narratives that sacralise the NHS - or indeed any of our better
achievements or virtues - as part of our nationalism, risk making us complacent.
We all love the NHS, fair play, queues, warm beer and decency. These things
will always be with us, with any temporary lapses promptly corrected. So the
story goes.</p>
<p>Of course in 2012, just as Boyle’s dancing nurses brought a lump
to our throats, the government was enacting the most destructive anti-NHS
legislation in history, destroying (in England) its core principle that people
got <em>comprehensive</em> healthcare on the
basis that they lived here, and needed it, that had endured since 1948.</p>
<p>Just a couple of months <em>before</em>
the 2012 Olympics, <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9291483/Theresa-May-interview-Were-going-to-give-illegal-migrants-a-really-hostile-reception.html">Theresa
May also publicly announced the “hostile
environment” policy</a>, making it progressively harder over the next few years
for migrants to access healthcare or other basic rights, as well as making life
progressively more uncomfortable – or impossible – <a href="https://opendemocracy.net/ournhs/ruth-atkinson/brexit-and-nhs-we-need-to-fight-racist-discourse">for migrant workers in the
NHS</a>. </p>
<p>The Tories genuflect to the NHS as a ‘national religion’ almost as
much as Labour - but that hasn’t stopped them disestablishing it and
excommunicating large numbers of people from it. </p>
<p>And not just migrants, incidentally. Overweight people and smokers
are now being banned from <em>all</em> routine
NHS procedures <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/22/nhs-letter-more-rations-on-operations-obese-smokers">across
at least a third of the country</a>, a policy strongly opposed by doctors.</p>
<p>Sajid Javid suggested last week that the hostile environment “<a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sajid-javid-theresa-may-new-home-secretary-immigration-rhetoric-hostile-not-british-a8330151.html">did
not represent our values as a country</a>”, and <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/07/jacob-rees-mogg-amazing-rise-savid-javid-makes-proud-british/">Jacob
Rees-Mogg yesterday called the policy “unBritish”.</a>
But Eric Pickles called the aforementioned NHS fat bans “<a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/caroline-molloy/dont-want-government-to-let-nhs-die-one-crucial-thing-you-can-do-now">not
the kind of Britain I recognise</a>”, too. It seems evoking Britishness doesn’t
save us. </p>
<h2>&nbsp;‘Good nationalism’ vs ‘bad
nationalism’?</h2>
<p>Is ‘bad nationalism’ really confined to the Other, to the
unashamedly right-wing both here and across the pond? </p>
<p>Williams says, “I
have no problem with a bordered civic identity: our borders describe the limits
of our democratic agency.” She adds, “Good nationalism… includes, by
definition, every man, woman and child who contributed to the achievement”. But
Williams fails to spell out who this is. Those Caribbean nurses who came here
to build the NHS, now finding themselves or their children denied healthcare, and worse? The Commonwealth doctors, routinely discriminated against?
The slaves who were forced to help ‘this nation’ establish its wealth? </p>
<p>Williams doesn’t say, and such vagueness is not good enough.</p>
<p>This isn’t ‘good nationalism’ – this is nationalism (as ever, in
the English context) as forgetting. Forgetting that the NHS was not <em>just</em> built “together, as a nation”, as
Williams suggests. It was built by a nation that had built its wealth on the
back of empire and slavery, by overwriting brown people’s “civic identity”, a
nation that had no qualms about interfering in its colonies’ “democratic agency”
just long enough to exploit all that could be exploited – and not a moment
longer.</p>
<p>It’s a message that has been powerfully brought home lately, with
the very Commonwealth workers who came over here to help build the NHS,
shamefully denied healthcare for themselves or their families. </p>
<p>Even now, too many responses to the Windrush scandal fall into <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/luke-de-noronha/windrush-generation-and-illegal-immigrants-are-both-our-kin">inherently
flawed tropes of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ migrants</a>, with the ‘bad migrants’ category
including <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/juan-camilo/migrants-fairness-and-nhs">children</a>, <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/rayah-feldman/pregnant-women-bear-brunt-of-government-s-clampdown-on-migrant-nhs-care">pregnant women</a> and <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/erin-dexter/making-nhs-hostile-environment-for-migrants-demeans-our-country">torture victims and people with infectious
diseases</a>, all of whom are still now being refused free healthcare. The
former head of the NHS attacked these policies as a “<a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/ex-boss-of-england-s-nhs-blasts-nhs-migrant-policy-as-national-scandal">national
scandal” when Jeremy Hunt rolled out upfront passport checks and charges
last year</a>. But the <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/kailash-chand/stop-distracting-us-with-health-tourism-sideshow">grossly
exaggerated</a> story of so-called ‘health tourism’ won’t go away, carried by
the insidious bleating about ‘an international health service’ that’s travelled
from Nick Griffin’s mouth, to Nigel Farage’s, to Jeremy Hunt’s, to even <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9aq47KRrOI">that other bastion of
liberal national pride, the BBC</a>.</p>
<h2>A little history</h2>
<p>A few years after the Windrush generation arrived, <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/whole-agitation-has-nasty-taste-bevan-on-so-called-health-tourism">Nye
Bevan wrote powerfully</a> about the importance of generosity to visitors and
of universalism, saying:</p>
<p>“it would be&nbsp;unwise as well as mean&nbsp;to
withhold the free service from the visitor to Britain. How do we distinguish a
visitor from anybody else?&nbsp;Are British citizens
to carry means of identification everywhere&nbsp;to prove that
they are not visitors? For if the sheep are to be separated from the goats both
must be classified. What began as an attempt to keep the Health Service for
ourselves would end by being a nuisance to everybody. Happily, this is one of
those occasions when&nbsp;generosity and
convenience march together….
The whole agitation has a nasty taste. Instead of rejoicing at the opportunity
to practice a civilized principle, Conservatives have tried to&nbsp;exploit the most
disreputable emotions&nbsp;in this among many other&nbsp;attempts to discredit
socialized medicine.”</p>
<p>Williams writes “Patriotism is
democracy, distilled: satisfaction and solidarity rooted in having created the
conditions in which generosity and innovation could thrive.”</p>
<p>This sounds like a very Blue Labour take (or Blue Corbynism…?).</p>
<p>It’s also nonsense. </p>
<p>Do we really want to relegate our “generosity” to merely a
side-effect of patriotism? Our most generous service – <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/01/nhs-even-more-cherished-monarchy-and-army">the
NHS – has also been our most cherished</a>, for that very reason. The NHS is
not a side effect of patriotism. It is, as Bevan himself said, “pure socialism”.
</p>
<p>And “innovation” in science and medicine has nothing to do with
patriotism, either. Our greatest discoveries have been built on cross-border,
non-profit collaboration for centuries, and continue to be so – <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/ted-schrecker/5-reasons-brexit-is-very-bad-for-our-health">though
threatened by Brexit</a>. </p>
<p>Mangling history to provide comforting myths won’t provide the
effective countervailing ‘narrative’ to ‘bad nationalism’ that Williams says the
English need. Indeed it just makes ‘bad nationalism’ worse. </p>
<p>We need proper history, not more myth making dressed up as ‘narrative’
and ‘framing’.</p>
<p>By proper history, I mean a history that acknowledges the role of
empire in building our welfare state. A history that doesn’t just portray the
NHS as a ‘reward’ for ordinary people that ‘we won’ with our fortitude and
sacrifice during our ‘finest hour’, delivered by rulers with an inherent sense
of ‘fair play’ and ‘never again’, imbued with the ‘Spirit of 45’ and
immediately able to see and embrace the common sense of applying wartime state
management to public needs. We also need a history that acknowledges that in
fact the NHS’s creation – and that of the rest of the welfare state – was as
much to do with elite fears exposed yet again by the demands of war; fears of an
enduringly sickly and unproductive workforce, of the pull of communism, and
indeed, their fears of a recently demobbed, militarily-trained working class.</p>
<h2>Nationalism - same as it ever was</h2>
<p>Less than a month after Boyle’s Olympic opening ceremony, the
government announced it was setting up ‘Healthcare UK’ to help the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/aug/21/nhs-brand-sold-overseas-hospitals">NHS
‘brand’ to be exported overseas, particularly to the Gulf states, with private firms
allowed to “partner with” and benefit from the NHS’s brand recognition</a>. Broadcasting
the NHS brand so powerfully to nearly a billion people was undoubtedly useful in
helping “<a href="https://healthcareuk.blog.gov.uk/2016/02/23/a-legacy/">public
and private sector organisations</a>” build their global healthcare exports. Whatever
Boyle’s good intentions – and the government’s <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tories-tried-to-axe-olympic-nhs-celebration-vzc8pmfck">reported
initial discomfort</a> – perhaps our desire for a ‘good nationalism’ (<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/jul/28/olympic-games-opening-ceremony-british">gleefully
reported at the time</a>) is all too easily hijacked to export (neo)colonialism
for the benefit of a few, just as ‘bad nationalism’ was. </p>
<p>There is no such thing as ‘good nationalism’, as applied to
England, in other words, a nationalism that serves the interests of ordinary
people. There is only English nationalism that undermines those interests, that
harms our solidarity both in our communities and globally, and that’s a figleaf
for pursuing the interests of elites, whilst playing divide and rule amongst
the rest of us.</p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ourkingdom/lara-brearley/exporting-nhs-brand-overseas">Exporting the NHS &#039;brand&#039; overseas?</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/why-you-can-t-solve-nhs-s-funding-problems-by-banning-smokers-and-obese-from-treatment">Why you can’t solve the NHS’s problems by banning smokers and the obese from treatment</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/uk/anthony-barnett/why-brexit-its-english-stupid">Why Brexit? It&#039;s the English, stupid.</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/erin-dexter/making-nhs-hostile-environment-for-migrants-demeans-our-country">Making the NHS a “hostile environment” for migrants demeans our country</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/ruth-atkinson/brexit-and-nhs-we-need-to-fight-racist-discourse">Brexit and the NHS - why we all must fight the racist discourse</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/greg-dropkin-karen-reissman/healthcare-in-britain-first-they-came-for-immigrants">Healthcare in Britain - first they came for the immigrants</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/juan-camilo/migrants-fairness-and-nhs">Migrants, &quot;fairness&quot; and the NHS</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/kailash-chand/stop-distracting-us-with-health-tourism-sideshow">Stop distracting us with the &#039;health tourism&#039; sideshow</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by NC 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSCan Europe make it?ukourNHSCaroline MolloyTue, 08 May 2018 13:00:28 +0000Caroline Molloy117743 at https://www.opendemocracy.netKey NHS ‘efficiency’ programme ‘RightCare’ called into question in Liverpool – and elsewhere?https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/greg-dropkin/key-nhs-efficiency-programme-rightcare-called-into-question-in-liverpool-and-els
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>NHS England is promoting ‘RightCare’ as a way for the NHS to deliver still more ‘efficiency savings’. But questions to Liverpool CCG show at least some local NHS managers are well aware of its flaws.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/liverpool.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/liverpool.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="252" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'></span></span><em>Image: Royal Liverpool University Hospital, PA Images/Peter Byrne, all rights reserved.</em></p><p>RightCare
is an NHS England system for encouraging CCGs to compare themselves with other
CCGs, with the declared aims of improving performance and reducing costs. When
Accountable Care Systems were rebranded as “Integrated Care Systems” in the
latest Planning Guidance, NHSE also promoted RightCare. “<a href="https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/planning-guidance-18-19.pdf">Refreshing
NHS plans for 2018/19</a>”, which says “In addition to the moderation of
emergency demand, the use of RightCare, elective care redesign, urgent and
emergency care reform, medicines optimisation, and more integrated primary and
community services are also key areas of focus”.</p>
<p>Liverpool
CCG’s plan for an Integrated Care System was presented on 13 March. It is a 60
page paper “<a href="https://www.liverpoolccg.nhs.uk/media/2943/lccg-gov-body-tuesday-13th-march-18-papers-pack-website-version.pdf">One
Liverpool: 2018-2021</a>” written by Healthy Liverpool Integrated Programme
Director Carole Hill, with Liverpool CCG Chief Officer Jan Ledward as the Lead
Governor. A section on High Impact Priorities waxes lyrical on RightCare.</p>
<p>“In
support of the work by the Provider Alliance to develop detailed delivery
plans, Liverpool CCG has undertaken a review of clinical and non-clinical
interventions that have the capacity to deliver high impact change to achieve
our outcome ambitions. The review incorporated the Commissioning for Value
approach which is embedded in NHS RightCare, the NHS England programme committed
to delivering the best care, making the NHS’s money go as far as possible and improving
patient outcomes. <a href="https://www.england.nhs.uk/rightcare/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2017/01/cfv-liverpool-jan17.pdf">Local
RightCare data</a> shines a light on variation and
performance and supports local health economies to have discussions to agree a
starting point for change. NHS RightCare has a three stage,
evidence-based methodology, of ‘Where to look’, ‘What to change’
and ‘How to change’ which provides a robust process for service redesign and
prioritisation.</p>
<h2>Magical Thinking</h2>
<p>Describing
itself as “a proven approach that delivers better patient outcomes and frees up
funds for further innovation”, RightCare turns out to be unproven and based on
faulty statistics (<a href="https://blog.oup.com/2017/12/questioning-nhs-rightcare/">Questioning the
magical thinking of NHS RightCare</a>). Apparently Liverpool should compare
itself with Brighton, Bristol, Sheffield,&nbsp;Newcastle, and Stoke and then save 80 lives per
year from lung cancer mortality.</p>
<p>Public
Health academic Dr Alex Scott-Samuel sent the CCG an FOI request to find out if
they’d heard criticism of RightCare.</p>
<p>1)
Was Liverpool CCG aware of the Journal of Public Health article "<a href="https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/advance-article/doi/10.1093/pubmed/fdx136/4596536">RightCare:
wrong answers</a>", published 3 Nov 2017, when formulating the "One
Liverpool" strategy?</p>
<p>2)
In formulating the "One Liverpool" strategy, how did Liverpool CCG
take account of this peer-reviewed criticism of the RightCare methodology?</p>
<p>3)
Which other specific aspects of Liverpool CCG's work involve RightCare?</p>
<p>4)
How does Liverpool CCG intend to respond to this peer-reviewed criticism of the
RightCare methodology in future? </p>
<p>The
CCG’s unexpected answer included a less than ringing endorsement:</p>
<p>“Liverpool
CCG is aware of the article and the conclusions regarding the limitations of the
Right Care methodology. The CCG uses the Right Care Methodology as one tool to
highlight where there is variation in outcomes and activity, to inform the
development of shared priorities for improvement within the Liverpool health
and care system. It is not the only method we use and we do acknowledge its
limitations. We do not take a literal view of the scale of opportunities set
out in our local Right Care data packs... The CCG does not rigidly follow the
Right Care methodology to set levels of ambition and does not assume that the
efficiencies or outcomes gains published should be modelled in our plans.”</p>
<p>Why
not ask your CCG about the RightCare magic? Do their Integrated Care plans show
the same unbridled enthusiasm for RightCare as “One Liverpool”, or do they take
a more sober view?</p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/stewart-player/taking-politics-out-of-nhs-or-constructing-elitist-consensus">Taking politics out of the NHS? Or constructing an elitist ‘consensus’?</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/caroline-molloy/why-%C2%A38bn-is-zombie-figure-that-won%27t-save-nhs">Why £8bn is a zombie figure that won&#039;t save the NHS </a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by NC 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSourNHSGreg DropkinMon, 30 Apr 2018 11:50:29 +0000Greg Dropkin117572 at https://www.opendemocracy.netGP practices face funding threat as online service ‘targets’ young peoplehttps://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/david-wrigley/gp-practices-face-funding-threat-as-online-service-targets-young-people
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>Doctors and NHS staff raise the alarm as the GP at Hand model threatens the very survival of NHS general practice.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/telephone-mobile-to-call-attainable-40552.jpeg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/telephone-mobile-to-call-attainable-40552.jpeg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="307" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'></span></span><em>Image: Person using mobile, CC0 license.</em></p><p>The traditional GP
practice, in place since the NHS’ inception in 1948, is under serious financial
threat from a new online service that is draining funding from surgeries.</p>
<p>Doctors in Unite
(DiU) – part of Unite, the country’s largest union – are warning today that the
online NHS&nbsp;GP at Hand&nbsp;service,
powered by private digital health provider Babylon, is signing up predominately
young people – and putting the future care of vulnerable groups at risk.</p>
<p>When patients
register with&nbsp;GP at Hand,
currently operating just in&nbsp;London,&nbsp;they are ‘de-registered’ from
their own surgery with funding being removed from that practice.</p>
<p>What’s the problem? Well, losing
registration fees for younger, fitter patients who join GP at Hand threatens
the model of general practice relied on by so many patients, since the NHS was
formed 70 years ago.</p>
<p>The scheme is hoovering up the younger,
healthier patients and restricts access to those who are pregnant, frail,
terminally ill or suffering from multiple health problems. There appears to be
an element of cherry picking operating here, which, if true, is to be deplored.</p>
<p>In practice, 70 per cent of all patients are
reasonably well. Their funding helps surgeries care for the 30 per cent who are
sick. It’s a system that works, because it’s fair. We will eventually end up in
the 30 per cent - and that’s why we are calling on health and social care
secretary Jeremy Hunt to scrap this flawed and misguided model.</p>
<p>It is understood
that since&nbsp;GP at Hand&nbsp;launched
in London in November 2017 about 26,000 patients have registered, most of them
being between the ages of 20 and 39.</p>
<p>Practices in the capital have seen their list
sizes fall for the first time in years due to those patients registering with
GP at Hand.</p>
<p>There is, no doubt, that GP at Hand&nbsp;will
financially destabilise many practices robbing them of the vital risk pooling
and cross subsidy which enables them to provide good care to their more complex
and unwell patients.</p>
<p>GP at Hand targets the most profitable
patients – those who are younger and healthier and don’t need extensive care
from their GP.</p>
<p>Jeremy Hunt has said that general practice is
the ‘Jewel in the Crown’ of the NHS. If he truly believes this, he will
acknowledge that the GP at Hand model threatens the very survival of NHS
general practice.</p>
<p>GP at Hand has made it clear it wishes to roll
out this model of care across the country, so this scheme will threaten general
practice across England.</p>
<p>General practice is the cornerstone of the NHS
which has provided excellent care with its other community partners for
decades.</p>
<p>NHS staff who share
our concerns can sign the open letter to Jeremy Hunt <a href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScDINMclsb7DiYlhq5HwTvr6fg1A-gwRwVhrKooVh5kcdwzIg/viewform">here</a>.</p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/david-mccoy-lewis-hier-thomas/gp-at-hand-handy-for-whom"> ‘GP at hand’: handy for whom?</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/shibley-rahman/247-transparent-nhs-%E2%80%93-or-rise-of-planet-of-apps">A 24/7, transparent NHS – or the rise of the planet of the apps?</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by NC 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSourNHSDavid WrigleyWed, 25 Apr 2018 11:25:28 +0000David Wrigley117487 at https://www.opendemocracy.netAn 'NHS tax' is perfect for a 'new centrist party'—stale, regressive and technocratichttps://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/caroline-molloy/nhs-tax-is-stale-regressive-and-technocratic-perfect-for-new-centrist-party
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>National
Insurance is regressive. Hypothecating taxes tends to encourage ideas of opt
outs &amp; top ups. So why is Liz Kendall promoting these as the 'new consensus'
for NHS funding?</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/liz kendall.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/549093/liz kendall.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="286" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'></span></span><em>Image: Liz Kendall in 2015. Lauren Hurley/PA Images, all rights reserved.</em></p><p>Today, Tory MP Nick Boles, Lib Dem former health minister Norman
Lamb and former Blairite health minister Liz Kendall joined forces to promote
the idea of a dedicated ‘health and social care tax’, through National Insurance,
to replace current NHS funding. Boles grandly proclaimed it “A new Beveridge
moment”.</p>
<p>The main lesson to be drawn from their interview broadcast on this
morning’s BBC Radio Four Today programme, is that it doesn’t take much to
excite the media about anything that could be portrayed as - if not the birth pangs, perhaps at least the twinkle in an eye - of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43875246">a ‘new centrist party’</a>
run by ‘<a href="https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/988724069133619200">grown-ups’</a>.
A rehash of an old, bad idea that’s been doing the rounds in right-wing circles for
years? That will do just fine. </p>
<p>The interview – conducted by the BBC’s political editor Laura
Kuenssberg not its health editor Hugh Pym&nbsp;–&nbsp;was notable for its lack of interest
in whether such a plan actually had anything useful to offer today’s NHS. Kuenssberg’s
line of questioning focused exclusively on the politics: “I mean here we are,
an extraordinary degree of consensus…You’re all saying that the parties have to
share the political risk… that none of the party leaderships right now are up
to this task…”.</p>
<p>The stale idea of an ‘NHS tax’ is perfect for those who’ve pinned
their hopes on the creation of a ‘new centrist party’. It’s a technocratic
issue that’s unlikely to be well understood by most voters, many of whom are
under the mistaken impression that National Insurance is what funds the NHS
already. The <a href="https://opendemocracy.net/dave-byrne/why-talking-about-nhs-tax-isnt-brave-at-all">history is slightly complicated</a>, but the health
service is still overwhelmingly funded as Nye Bevan set out when he <a href="http://www.unitetheunion.org/uploaded/documents/In%20Place%20of%20Fear%20-%20Chapter%205,%20A%20Free%20Health%20Service11-21215.pdf">explicitly
rejected the 1911 National Insurance-based system of healthcare</a>&nbsp;as unfair and "peculiarly unsuitable" and instead
set up the NHS: </p>
<p>“The means of collecting the revenues for the health service are
already in the possession of most modern states, and that is the normal system
of taxation. This was the course which commended itself to me and it is the
basis of the finance of the British Health Service. Its revenues are provided
by the Exchequer in the same way as other forms of public expenditure. I am
afraid this is not yet fully understood. Many people still think they pay for
the National Health Service by way of their contribution to the National
Insurance Scheme.”</p>
<p>The system Bevan founded continues to enjoy <a href="https://twitter.com/carolinejmolloy/status/914982117305733120">sky-high
public support</a>, with <a href="https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/what-do-public-think-about-nhs">nine
out of 10 saying its founding principles should still apply today</a>. But being
“<a href="https://opendemocracy.net/uk/jeremy-gilbert/antisemitism-cosmopolitanism-and-politics-of-labour-s-old-and-new-right-wings">unencumbered
by nostalgia for the 1945 welfare-state settlement</a>” is, as Jeremy Gilbert rightly
says, central to the identity of the Blairites and their fellow neoliberal-friendly
“centrists” in other parties.</p>
<h2>Why ‘comprehensive’ healthcare matters</h2>
<p>The ‘NHS tax’ idea is also the antithesis of what campaigning
politics is about – focusing, as it does, on inputs rather than outcomes.</p>
<p>The public want an NHS that provides the healthcare they need,
when they need it – in other words, a comprehensive and timely service. And to the dismay of right-wingers, the public has remained firmly
wedded to this outcome that was at the heart of the founding of the NHS. To the idea that it's the state’s duty to provide a comprehensive healthcare service for everyone (though that duty
was significantly weakened - <a href="https://www.allysonpollock.com/?p=2270">some
say abolished</a> - by the 2012 Health and Social Care Act).</p>
<p>The new set of NHS ‘principles’ that Kendall and Boles have produced
say nothing about protecting and renewing a ‘comprehensive’ NHS. They will do therefore do nothing to stop people being told – as they are now, increasingly - “not on the
NHS” for treatments ranging from <a href="https://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/cheshire-nhs-plans-sweeping-cuts-12332772">erectile
dysfunction</a> and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-41913680">vasectomies</a>,
to <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5436296/hip-and-knee-operations-being-denied/">hip
and knee ops</a>, timely <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18176017">cataract
removals</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/03/hearing-aids-supply-cuts-nhs-depression-dementia">hearing
aids</a>. Some – like former British Medical Association Deputy Chair <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jun/22/kailash-chand-bma-tory-party-agenda-wash-hands-nhs">Kailash
Chand - have already warned</a> that if this trend continues, the NHS is likely
to shrink to just an inadequate Medicare style fall-back option for those who
can’t afford health insurance. All of the <a href="https://opendemocracy.net/ournhs/stewart-player/taking-politics-out-of-nhs-or-constructing-elitist-consensus">many
recent attempts to impose a neoliberal-friendly ‘cross party consensus’</a>
have <a href="https://opendemocracy.net/ournhs/caroline-lucas/why-i-have-removed-my-backing-for-nhs-commission">failed
to incorporate any principled red line about a commitment to comprehensive
healthcare</a> – and so all of them have been <a href="https://opendemocracy.net/ournhs/ournhs/nhs-campaigners-say-no-to-nhs-commission">resoundingly
rejected by NHS campaigners</a> (as Norman Lamb should know – he’s been
involved in most of the recent attempts).</p>
<p>The ‘NHS tax’ idea seems unlikely to appeal to any
particular demographic of voters. But of course, it could well appeal to a group
that most of the ‘centrist party’ fans seem to consider far more important – potential funders.
If you look closely at what’s said – and unsaid - in the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/notes/nick-boles-mp/ten-principles-of-long-term-funding-for-nhs-and-social-care/1522885904504144/">Boles/Kendall
principles</a>, there’s a lot of music to the ears of corporations and the rich.</p>
<h2>The dangers of an “NHS tax”</h2>
<p>The most obvious problem in using National Insurance to pay for
the NHS is that it is a deeply regressive tax that is capped for the rich. Boles and Kendall nod to this problem, but say only rather vaguely that “higher earners, the self employed, and better off
pensioners” will make a “fair” contribution. But if this government is offered
a choice between meaningfully reforming a huge loophole that lets them tax poor
people more heavily than rich ones – or just loading massive new costs onto an
unreformed tax that doesn’t upset the Daily Mail, in the name of ‘saving the
NHS’ and ‘a new consensus’ – which do you think Theresa May might pick? </p>
<p>Funding through the NHS through the National Insurance system is not
just regressive, though. There are other dangers.</p>
<p>Firstly, such a plan would probably make it easier – not more
difficult&nbsp;–&nbsp;to underfund the NHS, with yet still more quangos and regulators
deflecting public concern away from politicians. It would renew the emphasis on the <a href="https://opendemocracy.net/ournhs/richard-murphy/%27nhs-tax%27-is-not-answer">(false) idea that public funds are a simple matter of 'tax in, spending out'</a>, and also the equally false idea that the NHS is somehow separate from the real business of government (a point <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/24/nhs-tax-fragmentation-cross-party-campaign-health-crisis">Caroline Lucas makes excellently in the Guardian today</a>).&nbsp;And whilst Boles and Kendall
say the new Fund ought to be “publicly owned”, it’s not hard to imagine the
Fund being privatised in the future (right wing Labour MP <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/02/run-the-nhs-and-social-care-like-john-lewis-says-frank-field">Frank
Field has already called for just such an NI based NHS fund to be run as a
‘mutual’</a> …)</p>
<p>Secondly, separating out our payments for the NHS and channelling
them through the contributions-based National Insurance system would make it far
easier in future to exclude people who – for whatever reason - haven’t earned
enough to pay sufficient contributions. </p>
<p>Liz Kendall told me in January “<a href="https://twitter.com/carolinejmolloy/status/988712894287237121">I do not
support…social insurance</a>”. But the scheme Boles has persuaded her to sign up
to looks an awful lot like social insurance in many respects. Admittedly, it
does commit to ‘universal’ provision (rather than contributions-based provision)
– but how long would such a commitment last, when the mechanism made it so easy
to exclude people who could be labelled as ‘less deserving’? (Indeed, we ought
to be careful when we’re making the case for the Windrush generation to receive
healthcare, that we don’t over-emphasise the fact that they’ve ‘worked and paid
taxes’, but rather focus on defending the right to universal, comprehensive
healthcare as one of Britain’s highest achievements).</p>
<p>Another danger of an ‘NHS tax’ is that such a scheme would also be
likely to create pressure to grant an ‘opt out’ for those who pay for private
health insurance – much like the NI reforms Thatcher introduced in 1988 which
allowed those who signed up to private pensions to opt out of the State Second
Pension (with disastrous results). Once an opt-out is allowed, we’re into two-tier
healthcare and delivering the insurance firms’ dream.</p>
<p>And what of the contributory benefits we currently have? Boles
suggests that the entire National Insurance fund be renamed the ‘National
Health and Care Fund’. If our healthcare, sick pay and state pensions are all supposedly coming from the same pot, could we in future see them paid out as a merged
allowance, from which people can buy their own healthcare from a range of
‘providers’, alongside
their fuel bills and weekly shop, topping up from their own money when their 'entitlement' payment runs out? This might sound like a distant Thatcherite
dystopia, but it’s a set of ideas some on the right – including the Labour
right – have flirted with. Then Chancellor
George Osborne <a href="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en-GB&amp;q=https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/caroline-molloy/osborne-lays-out-path-to-broken-nhs-funding-promises&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1524673428477000&amp;usg=AFQjCNF7n9gQoaKG1AAAvtlbCMqCZdHXDA">floated
the possibility of ‘integrated budgets across health and employment</a>' back
in 2014, not long after New
Labour think tank DEMOS had laid the groundwork by <a href="https://www.demos.co.uk/project/the-power-of-prepaid-2/">suggesting </a>that
benefit and healthcare 'entitlements' could be merged on one ‘entitlement card’.
Already the use of fixed ‘entitlement’ sums (known as ‘personal budgets’) is
entrenched in social care – and the concept is now being <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/16/plans-to-extend-personalised-health-budget-scheme">rolled
out with little fanfare into healthcare</a>, enthusiastically promoted by <a href="https://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/new-nhs-funding-should-drive-patient-centred-reforms">another Blairite former Health minister Alan Milburn</a>, and by&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/28/liz-kendall-shadow-minister-care-health-nhs">Liz
Kendall herself</a>.</p>
<p>Jeremy Hunt has written to all Tory MPs asking for their ideas for the future of the NHS,
and both he and Theresa May have said that they’ll launch a new “long term
plan” for the NHS this summer – probably timed to coincide with its 70th
birthday. The “centrists” have a truly lousy birthday present up their sleeve.
It’s up to the rest of us to keep a close eye on them. </p>
<p>Because – as Bevan said, and as we’ve been reminded of in recent
weeks:</p>
<p>“Society becomes more
wholesome, more serene, and spiritually healthier, if it knows that its
citizens have at the back of their consciousness the knowledge that not only
themselves, but all their fellows, have access, when ill, to the best that
medical skill can provide.”</p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/dave-byrne/why-talking-about-nhs-tax-isnt-brave-at-all">Why talking about an &#039;NHS tax&#039; isn&#039;t brave at all</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/ournhs/richard-murphy/%27nhs-tax%27-is-not-answer">An &#039;NHS Tax&#039; is not the answer</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/ournhs/stewart-player/taking-politics-out-of-nhs-or-constructing-elitist-consensus">Taking politics out of the NHS? Or constructing an elitist ‘consensus’?</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by NC 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ourNHSukourNHSCaroline MolloyTue, 24 Apr 2018 17:59:05 +0000Caroline Molloy117472 at https://www.opendemocracy.netArron Banks and Brexit’s offshore secretshttps://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexitinc/marcus-leroux-leigh-baldwin/brexit-s-offshore-secrets-0
<div class="field field-summary">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<p>In 2015, Arron Banks’s insurance business was bailed out. Where the rescue money came from is unclear—but as the Electoral Commission probes the sources of the Leave donor’s campaign contributions, a group of accountants who specialise in offshore “wealth preservation” may hold the key.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p dir="ltr"><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/553846/PA-26717630_0.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/553846/PA-26717630_0.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="309" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Arron Banks (left) with Nigel Farage (centre), the day after the UK voted to leave the EU. Image, Isabel Infantes/EMPICS Entertainment.</span></span></span></p><p dir="ltr">On 19 October 2017, Alan Kentish was arrested.</p><p dir="ltr">The chief executive officer of STM Group, which specialises in offshore “wealth preservation”, was detained by the Royal Gibraltar Police under the Proceeds of Crime Act. They were investigating whether he had failed to notify the authorities of potential money-laundering by one of STM’s clients. </p><p>Following his arrest, Kentish, who was released on police bail but remains a suspect in Gibraltar, resigned his directorships of two companies linked to multimillionaire Brexit donor Arron Banks.</p><p>Closely associated with Banks for more than a decade, Kentish and STM have drawn attention from authorities in several of the offshore tax havens where they operate. Kentish is appealing a directorship ban in Malta, while regulators in Jersey censured STM after probing its efforts to procure a St Kitts and Nevis passport for a Ukrainian politician on Interpol’s wanted list.</p><p dir="ltr">Now an investigation by SourceMaterial reveals that Kentish and other STM-linked directors were key figures in a bailout of Banks’s Gibraltar-based insurance business Southern Rock that began in 2015, just months before Banks began bankrolling the Leave.EU referendum campaign.</p><p dir="ltr">The mystery cash injection was critical to the survival of Banks’s insurance empire, the foundation of his wealth. Without it, it is hard to see how he could have funded his political donations while keeping the business afloat.</p><p dir="ltr">Banks has declined to answer questions about the origin of the bailout funds, while a spokesman for STM said the company did not supply the money or have any direct connection with the rescue.</p><p dir="ltr">As the Electoral Commission <a href="https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-donations/electoral-commission-statement-regarding-better-for-the-country-limited-and-mr-arron-banks">examines</a> the source of Banks’s £8.4 million in donations to the Leave campaign, the role of Kentish and other STM-linked figures—who presided over the bailout and were in a position to know where the money came from—may offer new clues to how Brexit was financed.</p><p dir="ltr">Andrew Wigmore, a spokesman for Banks, said our emailed questions were “baseless” and evidence of a “biased hatchet job” but declined to go into further detail. He said in an interview with <a href="https://www.byline.com/column/67/article/2073">Byline</a> in March that Banks paid for his Brexit campaign with proceeds of the sale of NewLaw Group, a law firm Banks partly owned. Wigmore did not elaborate on how Banks was able to bail out Southern Rock.</p><p><a href="https://investegate.co.uk/stm-group-plc--stm-/rns/director-declaration/201711141146274660W/">STM has said</a> the Gibraltar investigation relates to a client company of STM and it expects Kentish to be exonerated.</p><h2>Mister Big</h2><p dir="ltr">Banks, the man behind the GoSkippy car insurance brand, has never been shy about his wealth, often using an internet chatroom to brag about racehorses, diamond mines and jet-setting holidays. His username: Mister Big.</p><blockquote><p dir="ltr">“When I last looked I had”—reads a typical post from April 2014—“a direct insurance group, a gold mining operation in Ghana, four diamond mines in Kimberley (one in Lesotho), a country park complete with beautiful wedding venue, classic car collection, numerous land holdings (including building land acquired at the bottom of the market), a modest art collection and horrendous insomnia brought on by too much port, cigar and a seafood salad last night.”</p></blockquote><p dir="ltr">But much of the image was a mirage. As he lavished cash on Brexit, a series of offshore manoeuvres was underway to save a key company in his empire, Southern Rock Insurance, from bankruptcy.</p><p dir="ltr">In 2014, when a spectacular £1 million pledge to Ukip signalled his arrival in British politics, Banks was already firmly on the radar of authorities in Gibraltar. Finances at his Southern Rock Insurance Company had been shaky for years and now regulators feared a meltdown.</p><p dir="ltr">As the underwriter for policies sold by Banks’s UK insurance broker Eldon, Southern Rock was the cornerstone of his insurance empire. If it folded, Eldon would be crippled too, leaving hundreds of thousands of UK customers with car insurance not worth the paper it was written on. </p><p dir="ltr">Southern Rock’s accounts from as far back as 2011 had warned that it was “<a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/373954159/accounts-2011-technically-insolvent-pdf">technically insolvent</a>” and by the following year it was such dire straits that Banks had <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/373954218/List-of-assets-assigned-by-Rock-Holdings-to-Southern-Rock">pledged land and sold shares</a> to shore up its capital. The company’s own auditors made clear in 2013 that it was <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/373954156/auditors-going-concern-12-pdf">dependent on the mercy of the watchdog</a> for survival. &nbsp;</p><p dir="ltr">Meanwhile, the regulators made Southern Rock <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/373954154/Amendment-to-Southern-Rock-s-articles-of-association">promise not to make any payments</a> to Banks without their prior written consent and hired accountants PwC to assess the company’s vulnerability to shocks.</p><p dir="ltr">When in 2014 PwC’s findings confirmed their fears about Southern Rock’s fragility, Banks was pushed to <a href="https://www.globalreinsurance.com/gibraltar-based-southern-rock-directors-step-down-after-regulatory-probe-/1409043.article">resign</a> as chief executive officer, along with another director and longstanding associate—Alan Kentish.</p><h2>Dramatic rescue</h2><p dir="ltr">By 2015, as the Brexit referendum neared and Banks’ political fortunes went from strength to strength, Southern Rock was teetering on the edge. The rescue, when it came, was dramatic.</p><p dir="ltr">ICS Risk Solutions, a holding company on the Isle of Man, <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/373714177/Southern-Rock-Insurance-Company-Ltd-2015-accounts">agreed</a> to pump £77.7 million into Southern Rock to save it from collapse. In return, ICS would take a slice of the Gibraltar company’s future income. </p><p>The capital injection allowed the loss-making Southern Rock to meet new EU solvency regulations for insurance companies, described by Banks as “a good example of something no one really wants” being imposed by Brussels.</p><p dir="ltr">Because Banks owned both ICS and Southern Rock, it is not clear where the new money came from. But the arrival of the funds coincided with changes to the management of ICS.</p><p dir="ltr">Corporate records show that in April 2015, the day before the initial rescue deal, Louise Kentish, the wife of STM’s boss, <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/373717866/ICS-directors-2015">joined the ICS board</a>. On 24 June 2016, the day after the referendum, Alan Kentish <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/373717784/ICS-directors-2016">followed</a>, along with two other new directors—the former and current chairmen of STM. &nbsp;</p><p dir="ltr">Banks’s ties to Kentish and STM go back to at least 2004, when Kentish became a founding director of Southern Rock. Banks in turn invested in STM and was its largest shareholder before selling his stake in early 2015. More recently, Kentish, Banks and another STM founder co-invested in Legal Protection Group, a broker of insurance for lawyers and doctors that operates from Banks’s Bristol headquarters.</p><p dir="ltr">The arrival of Banks’s longstanding STM contacts at ICS at the time it found the money to save Southern Rock suggests they may hold the secret to the real source of the bailout funds that ensured Bank’s financial survival as he pumped millions into Leave.EU.</p><p dir="ltr">Public records suggest there may be an undeclared shareholder in ICS. Banks has said he owns 90 per cent of the company, with management and staff holding the rest. But the filings state he owns less—between 50 per cent and 75 per cent—with no information on the remainder. Banks declined to answer questions about the holdings.</p><p dir="ltr">SourceMaterial understands that Gibraltar’s Financial Services Commission is closely monitoring the arrangement between ICS and Southern Rock. &nbsp;</p><p dir="ltr">STM’s spokesman, who also responded on behalf of Kentish and the other STM directors, said the rescue “did not involve STM in any way”. He also suggested the bailout was spread over several years to mend the balance sheet without a single large cash injection. He did not address the origin of the funds.</p><h2>Offshore controversies</h2><p dir="ltr"><span class='wysiwyg_imageupload image imgupl_floating_none 0'><a href="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/wysiwyg_imageupload_lightbox_preset/wysiwyg_imageupload/553846/Alan Kentish.jpg" rel="lightbox[wysiwyg_imageupload_inline]" title=""><img src="//cdn.opendemocracy.net/files/imagecache/article_xlarge/wysiwyg_imageupload/553846/Alan Kentish.jpg" alt="" title="" width="460" height="259" class="imagecache wysiwyg_imageupload 0 imagecache imagecache-article_xlarge" style="" /></a> <span class='image_meta'><span class='image_title'>Alan Kentish with colleague Therese Neish. Image, YouTube, fair use</span></span></span></p><p dir="ltr">Kentish and STM specialise in keeping secrets. A core line of STM’s business is setting up offshore trusts, opaque financial structures that make it difficult to trace who ultimately owns the assets in them.</p><p dir="ltr">In 2002 STM was sued by the UK tax authorities after it set up a trust for an alleged fraudster suspected of masterminding a £100 million VAT scam. Kentish’s arrest in Gibraltar, after which he resigned as a director of Legal Protection Group and ICS, is one of several subsequent brushes with the authorities.&nbsp;</p><p dir="ltr">Early in 2017, STM’s Gibraltar offices received a visit from local regulators, who didn’t like what they saw. Later that year they told STM they were “fundamentally concerned” about its compliance with anti-money-laundering rules, according to Gibraltar court filings. STM tried to block publication of the proceedings, the documents show.</p><p dir="ltr">Particularly worrying to the regulators was the use of STM services to invest pension savings in the Trafalgar Multi Asset Fund, which collapsed in 2016 and is now <a href="https://www.collascrill.com/news/updates/suspicious-minds/">under investigation</a> by the UK’s Serious Fraud Office.</p><p dir="ltr">Angie Brooks, a director of Pension Life, an advocacy group for pension holders, said that STM should have spotted the red flags in the pension debacle. “It was the most toxic mix imaginable. Everything that could go wrong did go wrong and it should have been prevented."</p><p dir="ltr">STM denies any wrongdoing and is not under investigation itself. Liquidators are attempting to salvage the funds but savers have potentially lost millions.&nbsp;</p><h2>Ukrainian politician</h2><p dir="ltr">It wasn’t just Gibraltar. In 2015, STM became the <a href="https://www.collascrill.com/news/updates/suspicious-minds/">first company in Jersey</a> to be prosecuted for money-laundering compliance failures.</p><p dir="ltr">STM was managing operations for Henley &amp; Partners, whose business includes helping rich foreign nationals acquire citizenship of tax havens in return for investment—and whose chairman reportedly has <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/cambridge-analytica-british-data-firm-offered-1m-bribe-to-turn-election-psmv359vh">ties to Cambridge Analytica</a>, the election advisor accused of misusing Facebook data and entrapping politicians to skew elections around the world.</p><p dir="ltr">In 2010, STM had used its Henley business to help a Ukrainian politician apply for a passport in St Kitts and Nevis. Viacheslav Suprunenko, son-in-law of the mayor of Kiev and brother of a senior figure in the Moscow-backed Party of Regions, was at the time wanted by Interpol for assault during armed robbery to recover documents in a business dispute. (No charges have been brought.)</p><p dir="ltr">When Suprunenko asked STM to route his payments through offshore vehicles apparently unconnected to him, the company was suspicious enough to refuse the transactions—but failed to report them to the authorities.</p><p dir="ltr">A Henley spokeswoman told SourceMaterial that the company ended its relationship with STM in 2012. “When it comes to politically-exposed figures, we start from the position that any such person automatically requires even greater diligence including a thorough and independent review of friends and family,” she said. “If any criminal activity is suspected, we will immediately decline the applicant.”</p><h2>Money-laundering risks</h2><p dir="ltr">It was just one of a string of incidents in which STM turned a blind eye to money-laundering risks.</p><p dir="ltr">In a period of less than 18 months, junior STM staff filed internal suspicious activity reports on 19 individuals or entities. Only three of these were acknowledged by STM’s compliance officer and none was passed to the island’s financial crimes unit.</p><p dir="ltr">While STM was eventually acquitted in the money-laundering prosecution, it received an<a href="https://www.jerseyfsc.org/media/1101/public-statement-stm-july-2015.pdf"> official order</a> from Jersey’s financial regulator to clean up its behaviour. Its money-laundering compliance officer was banned from holding a regulated position in Jersey.</p><p dir="ltr">In another offshore haven, Malta, the story was much the same.</p><p dir="ltr">Twice in the last two years STM has been fined and officially rebuked, while Kentish was temporarily banned from holding management jobs for failing to inform the regulator when he was forced by the Gibraltar regulator to resign his directorship of Banks’s Southern Rock. STM and Kentish are appealing the sanctions.</p><p dir="ltr">“STM and its officers ensure a strong culture of corporate governance and compliance with industry regulation,” the company’s spokesman said. “This extends across internal and external relationships ensuring that risks to the business are minimised and that products and services are delivered appropriately.”</p><h2>New questions</h2><p dir="ltr">&nbsp;STM also played a cameo in the Brexit movement. Better for the Country Ltd, one of two campaign vehicles that received Banks’ £8.4 million in donations, was <a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/J22VO6IwI5BUTD8yGb4wy-KF3yn5SY0450qcd8ARhds/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAII5UKPTAP7NZOLMA&amp;Expires=1521823382&amp;Signature=JEtO16EHfsJhwujlFMJyHrnhBwM%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=FQoDYXdzEC4aDFYkZALUJLFVOeYoQCK3A7GnteoYv61JtlQWmCGz%2B%2FEI96CZUpJ0iCpDCCPiz%2F3mpObhoL1ylarxFYeloiSOY%2Bn57bWrzMOSbDCrhn7%2FSo7r7U0SbieK9ivQEf8rmF0hATPk7mAIDw6KcfSJ%2FUR2mGSIF4gKgmhHkhcdEpzl9GocSbLLMMgUasyhOA7B7n6KHSLE4ZXKA4DmvrJ1BfWgiAQfoizNSCYzkaR9PsXO%2F0LLN3PLE9b3Hd0opLO%2BYTBAamY5XOclo0xRCvXtObi7f081%2FMu8WLG%2Bykb0grQdGz6BXlZZpCRYdQoLpjebt9i%2BlbzeMQk9GUps30IC3Xu3v26eYBTJcqdAyagLqjDJgMsBCL25r2GALbpkVL9h4O9d4oggqj5bNXFy%2FzMb%2FhpWaLXLwE%2F3EkHUEqQAa40RZ3Q8wdiP%2FlxIymJXbT4rerHb0qIJYvM83Vk0oE4gsIzYHuwykzPG5ydIRalhR%2Fmg5vuYOoWdUV72aiYnHQ76vs16mdR0IvufkYQNJ0o1yI28ACKRVs3HVM4kXGjr11ky%2B%2F0gW%2FZ4DkxhQkXwwEzFN0WJ7BrIDlHdK0ccE2c5KQry9Zr%2B044ZbPso6vTT1QU%3D">set up</a> by an STM Group company.</p><p dir="ltr">Banks’s links to Alan Kentish and the STM set whose speciality is using offshore havens to guard wealthy clients’ secrets raise new questions about his Brexit campaign.</p><p dir="ltr">The Electoral Commission has set out to trace the ultimate source of the millions Banks put into Leave.EU and Better for the Country, the company STM founded.</p><p dir="ltr">But with cash flowing through island tax havens whose stock in trade is stealth, the answer may prove elusive.</p><fieldset class="fieldgroup group-sideboxs"><legend>Sideboxes</legend><div class="field field-related-stories">
<div class="field-label">Related stories:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/uk/brexitinc/adam-ramsay/how-did-arron-banks-afford-brexit">How did Arron Banks afford Brexit?</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/uk/brexitinc/leigh-baldwin-marcus-leroux/not-everyone-agrees-with-arron-banks-about-value-of-his-dia">Not everyone agrees with Arron Banks about the value of his diamond mines</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</fieldset>
<div class="field field-country">
<div class="field-label"> Country or region:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
UK </div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-rights">
<div class="field-label">Rights:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
CC by NC 4.0 </div>
</div>
</div>
ukourNHSUKBrexitinvestigationsArron BanksDUP Dark MoneyBrexit Inc.Leigh BaldwinMarcus LerouxThu, 12 Apr 2018 15:48:29 +0000Marcus Leroux and Leigh Baldwin117236 at https://www.opendemocracy.net